Infidelity : comprising Jenyns' Internal evidence, Leslie's Method, Lyttelton's Coversion of Paul, Watson's Reply to Gibbon and Paine, a notice of Hume on miracles, and an extract from West on the resurrection

' FEB 7 1339 ^

sc3 ^^

/ .9, ^1

b-U^

-^4^

(jp^

l(/ 1 TJ^llij.;

'^

LLOlS^iiSi^

T(i])]Li^ xny.-

FH^'ilIbllSmElIl MTT TIRIE

INFIDELITY:

COMPRISINQ

Ji2WYNS' IKTERWAIi EVIDENCE,

LESLIE'S METHOD.

LYTTELTON'S CONVERSION OP PAUL,

WATSON'S REPLY TO GIBBON AND PAINE,

|-

A NOTICE or

HUME ON MIRACI.es,

EXTRACT FROM WEST ON THE RESUURECTIOK

PUBLISHED BY

THE AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY,

150 NASSAU-STREET, NEW-YORK.

D. Fanahaw, Printer.

£5,

• ' 0

V

CONTSZTTS

Page.

Soame Jen5Tis, on the Internal Evidence of the Chris-
tian Religion, 6

Leslie's Method with the Deists, ... 73

Lord Lyttleton on the Conversion of St, Paul, . . 103
Bishop Watson's Reply to Gibbon ; or Apology for

Christianity, 181

Bishop Watson's Reply to Paine ; or Apology for the

Bible, '. . . . 283

Huxne's Denial of Miracles, . . . . , 439

Starkie's Examination of Hume's Argument, . . 443

The Resurrection — order of events, .... 450

A VIEW

S^^HI^^^^ 2^T^2S>^1S?<gJ3

CHRISTIAN RELIGION

BY SOAME JENYNS, Esq.

Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." — Acts, 26 : 28.

Of the following treatise, Dr. Pai ey says, in his incom-
parable work on the Evidences of Christianity, " 1 should
vi'illingly, if the limits and nature of my work admitted of
it, transcribe into this chapter the whole of what nas been
said upon the morality of the Gospel by the author of ' A
View of tlce Internal Evidence of Christianity ;' because it
perfectly agrees with my own opinion, and because it is im-
possible to say the same things so well."

The Rev. Dr. Alexander says he " has often heard it as
serted, and never contradicted, that the late Patrick Henry,
the celebrated orator of Virginia and of the American Revo-
lution, had been in early life skeptical, but was fully jaiis-
fied of the truth of the Christian religion by the perusal of
this little treatise of Soame Jenyns."

In the present edition a few passages, not essential to the
argument, have been omitted.

INTERNAIi EYIBENCE

Most of the writers who have undertaken to prove
the Divine origin of the Christian religion, have had
recourse to arguments drawn from these three heads :
The prophecips still extant in the Old Testament,
the miracles recorded in the New, of the internal
evidence arising from that excellence, and those clear
marks of supernatural interposition which are so con-
spicuous in the religion itself. The two former have
been sufficiently explained and enforced by the ablest
])ens ; but the last, which seems to carry with it the
greatest degree of conviction, has never, I think, been
considered with that attention which it deserves.

I mean not here to depreciate the proofs arising
from either prophecies, or miracles ; they both have,
or ought to have their proper weight. Prophecies
are permanent miracles, whose authority is sufficiently
confirmed by their completion, and are therefore
solid proofs of their supernatural origin of a religion
whose truth they were intended to testify. Such are
those to be found in various parts of the Scriptures
relative to the coming of tlie Messiah, the destruction
of Jerusalem, and the unexampled state in which the
Jews have ever since continued: all so circumstan-

4 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [8

r

tially descriptive of the events, that they seem rather
histories of past, than predictions of future transac-
tions ; and whoever will seriously consider the im-
mense distance of time between some of them aad
the events which they foretell, the uninterrupted cham
hy which they are connected for many thousand years,
how exactly they correspond with those events, and
how totally unapplicable they are to all others in the
history of mankind : I say, whoever considers these
circumstances, he will scarcely be pursuaded to be-
lieve that they can be the productions of preceding
artifice, or posterior application ; or be able to enter-
tain the least doubt of their being derived from super-
natural inspiration. The miracles recorded in the
New Testament to have been performed by Christ
and his apostles, were certainly convincing proofs of
their Divine commission to those who saAV them ; and
as they were seen by such numbers, and are as well
attested as other historical facts ; and, above all, as
they were wrought on so great and so wonderful an
occasion, they must still be admitted as incontrovert-
ible evidence.

To prove the truth of the Christian religion, I
prefer, however, to begin by showing the internal
marks of Divinity which are stamped upon it; be-
cause on this the credibility of the prophecies and
miracles in a great measure depends : for if we have
once reason to be convinced that this religion is de-
rived from a supernatural origin, prophecies and mi-
racles will become so far from being incredible, that it
will be highly probable that a supernatural revelation
should be foretold and enforced by supernatural
means.

9] OF CHRISTIANITY. 5

What pure Christianity is, divested of all its or-
naments, appendages, and corruption, I pretend not
now to say ; but what it is not, I will venture to affirm,
which is, that it is not the offspring of fraud or fic-
tion. Such, on a superficial view, I know it may
appear to a man of good sense, whose sense has been
altogether employed on other subjects ; but if any one
v.^ill give himself the trouble to examine it with ac-
curacy and candor, he will plainly see, that however
fraud and fiction may have grown up with it, yet it
never could have been grafted on the same stock
nor planted by the same hand.

To ascertain the true system and genuine doctrines
of this religion, after the controversies of above seven-
teen centuries, and to remove all the rubbish which arti
fice and ignorance have been heaping upon it during
all that time, would indeed be an ardous task, which
I shall by no means undertake; but to show that it
cannot possibly be derived from human wisdom, or
liuman imposture, is a work, I think, attea^ied with
no great difficulty, and requiring no ex'^raordinary
abilities ; and therefore I shall attempt that, and that
alone, by stating and then explaining the following
plain and undeniable propositions.

FiR3T, that there is now extant a book entitled the
New Testament.

Secondly, that from this book may be extracted a
system of religion entirely Qiew, both with regard to
the object and the doctrines., not o?ily infinitely supe-
rior to, but unlike, every thing which had ever before
entered into the mind of man.

Thirdly, that from this book may likewise be col-
lected a system of Ethics^ in which every moral

0 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [10

precept, founded on reason, is carried, to aJiigher de-
f^ree of purity and perfection than in any other of
the wisest philosophers of preceding ages ; every
■moral precept founded on false principles is totally
omitted, and many new precepts added, peculiarly
corresponding with the new object of this religion.

Lastly, that such a system of religion and mo-
rality could not possibly hare been the work of any
man, or set of men ; 'much less of those obscure, ig-
norant, and illiterate persons, who actually did
discover, and publish it to the world; and that, there-
fore, it must undoubtedly have been effected by the
interposition of Divine power ; that is, that it must
derive its origin from God.

PROPOSITION I.

Very little need be said to establish my first pro-
position, which is singly this: — That there is now
extant a book entitled the New Testament ; that is.
there is a collection of writings, distinguished by that
denomination, containing four historical accounts of
the birth, life, actions, discourses, and death of an
extraordinary person named Jesjis Christ, who was
born in the reign of Augustus Ccesar, preached a
new religion throughout the country of Judea, and
was put to a cruel and ignominious death in the reign
of Tiberius. Also one other historical account of the
travels, transactions, and orations of some plain and
illiterate men, known by the title of his apostles,
whom he commissioned to propagate his religion after
his death ; which he foretold them he must suffer in
confirmation of its truth. To these are added several

11] OF CHKISTIANITY. 7

epistolary writings, addressed by these persons to
tlieir fellow-laborers in this work, or to the several
churches or societies of Christians which they had
established in the several cities through which they
had passed.

It would not be difficult to prove that these books
were written soon after those extraordinary events,
which are the subjects of them, as we find thera quot-
ed and referred to by an uninterrupted succession of
writers from those to the present time : nor would it
be less easy to show that the truth of all those events,
miracles only excepted, can no more be reasonably
questioned than the truth of any other facts recorded in
uny history Vvdiatever ; and there can be no more rea-
s.on to doubt that there existed such a person as Jesus
Ciirist, speaking, acting, and suffering in such a man-
ner as is there described, than that there were such
men as Tiberius, Herod, or Pontius Pilate, his con-
temporaries ; or to suspect that Peter, Paul, and James
were not the authors of those epistles to which their
names are affixed, than that Cicero and Pliny did not
Avrite those which are ascribed to them. It might also
be made to appear, that these books, having been writ-
ten by various persons at different times, and in dis-
tant places, could not possibly nave been the work of
A single impostor, nor of a fraudulent combination,
being all stamped with the same marks of a uniform
originality in their very frame and composition.

But all these circumstances I shall pass over unob-
served, as they do not fall in with the course of my ar-
gument, nor are necessary for the support of it. Whe-
ther these books were written by the authors whose
names are prefixed to them ; whether they have been

8 JENYN3' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [12

enlarged, diminished, or any way corrupted by the ar-
tifice or ignorance of translators or transcribers ; whe-
ther in the historical parts the writers were instructed
by a perpetual, a partial, or by any inspiration at all ;
whether in the religious and moral parts they received
their doctrines from a divine influence, or from the in-
structions and conversation of their Master ; whether
in their facts or sentiments there is always the most
exact agreement, or whether in both they sometimes
differ from each other ; whether they are in any case
mistaken, or always infallible, or ever pretended to be
so, I shall not here dispute : let the deist avail himself
of all these doubts and difficulties, and decide them in
conformity to his own opinions. I shall not now con-
tend, because they affect not ray argument ; all that I
assert is a plain fact, which cannot be denied, that
such writings do now exist.

PROPOSITION II.

My second proposition is not quite so simple, but, I
think, not less undeniable than the former, and is this :
That from this book may be extracted a system of
religion entirely new, both icith regard to the object
and the doctrines ; not only infinitely superior to, but
totally unlike every thing ichich had ever before en-
tered into the mind of m.an. I say extracted, because
all the doctrines of this religion having been delivered
at various times, and on various occasions, and here
only historically recorded, no regular system of tlieo-
logy is here to be found ; and better perhaps, it had
been, if less labor had been employed by the learned'
to bend and twist these divine materials mto the po-

13] OF CHRISTIANITY. 9

lished forms of human systems. Why their great
author chose not to leave any such behind him, we
know not, but it might possibly be because he knew
tliat the imperfection of man was incapable of receiv-
ing such a system, and that we are more properly and
more safely conducted by the distant and scattered
rays, than by the too powerful sunshine of divine illu-
mination. " If I have told you earthly things," says
he, " and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell
you of heavenly things ?" John, 3 : 12. Thatis, if my
instructions concerning your behavior in the present,
as relative to a future life, are so difficult to be under-
stood that you can scarcely believe me, how shall you
believe me if I endeavor to explain to you the nature
of celestial beings, the designs of Providence, and the
mysteries of his dispensation ? subjects which you
have neither ideas to comprehend, nor language to
express.

First, then, the object of this religion is entirely
new, and is this ; to prepare us by a state of probation
for the kingdom of heaven. This is every where pro-
fessed by Christ and his apostles to be the chief end
of the Christian's life ; the crown for which he is to
contend, the goal to which he is to run, the harvest
which is to repay all his labors. Yet, previous to their
preaching, no such prize was ever hung out to man-
kind, nor any means prescribed for the attainment of it.

It is indeed true, that some of the philosophers of
antiquity entertained notions of a future state, but
mixed with much doubt and uncertainty. Their legis-
lators also endeavored to infuse into the minds of the
people a belief of rewards and punishments after death ;
but by this they only intended to give a sanction to

2 Infidelity.

10 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [14

their laws, and to enforce the practice of virtue for the
benefit of mankind in the present life. This alone
seems to have been their end, and a meritorious end it
was ; but Christianity not only operates more efTec-
tually to this end, but has a nobler design in view,
which is by a proper education here to render us fit
members of a celestial society hereafter.

In all former religions, the good of the present life
was the first object ; in the Christian, it is but the se-
cond ; in those, men were incited to promote that good
by the hopes of a future rev/aru ; in this, the practice
of virtue is enjoined in order to qualify them for that
reward. There is great difference, I apprehend, in these
two plans : that is, in adhering to virtue from its pre-
sent utility in expectation of future happiness, and
living in such a manner as to qualify us for the accep-
tance and enjoyment of that happiness ; and the con-
duct and dispositions of those w^ho act on these differ-
ent principles must be no less different. On the first,
the constant practice of justice, temperance, and so-
briety, will be sufficient ; but on the latter, we must
add to these an habitual piety, faith, resignation, and
contempt of the world. The first may make us very
good citizens, but will never produce a tolerable Chris-
tian. Hence it is that Christianity insists more strong-
ly than any preceding institution, religious or moral,
on -purity of heart, and a benevolent disposition, be-
cause these are absolutely necessary to its great end;
but in those whose recommendations of virtue regard
the present life only, and whose promised rewards in
another were low and sensual, no preparatory qualifi-
cations were requisite to enable men to practice the
one, or to enjoy the other; and therefore, we see thi*

15J OF CHRISTIANITY. 11

object is peculiar to this religion ; and with it, was
entirely new.

But although this object, and the principle on which
it is founded, were new, and perhaps undiscoverable
by reason, yet when discovered, they are so consonant
to it that we cannot but readily assent to them. For
the truth of this princible, that the present life is a
sta».° of probation and education to prepare us for
another, is confirmed by every thing Avhich we see
around cis : it is the only key which can open to us the
designs of Providence in the economy of human affairs,
the only clu?. which can guide us through that path-
less wilderness, and the only plan on which this world
could possibly have been formed, or on which the his-
tory of it can be comprehended or explained. It could
never have been formed on a plan of happiness, be-
cause it is every where overspread with innumerable
miseries ; nor of misery, because it is interspersed with
many enjoyments. It could not have been constituted
for a scene of wisdom and virtue, because the history
of mankind is little more than a detail of their follies
and wickedness ; nor of vice, because that is no plan
at all, being destructive of all existence, and conse-
quently of its own. But on this system, all that we
here meet with may be easily accounted for; for this
mixture of happiness and misery, of virtue and vice,
necessarily results from a state of probation and edu-
cation ; as probation implies trials, sufferings, and a
capacity of offending, and education a propriety of
chastisement for those offences.

In the next place, the doctrines of this religion are
equally new with the object; and contain ideas of
God, and of man, of the present, and of a future life

12 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [16

and of the relations which all these bear to each other,
totally unheard of, and quite dissimilar from any which
had ever been thought on previous to its publication.
No other ever drew so just a portrait of the worthless-
ness of this world, and all its pursuits, nor exhibited
such distinct, lively, and exquisite pictures of the
joys of another ; of the resurrection of the dead, the
last judgment, and the triumphs of the righteous in
that tremendous day, " when this corruptible shall put
on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immor-
tality." 1 Cor. 15 : 53. No other has ever represented
the Supreme Being in the character of three persons
united in one God. No other has attempted to recon-
cile those seeming contradictory, but both true propo-
sitions, the contingency of future events, and the fore-
knowledge of God, or the freewill of the creature with
the overruling grace of the Creator. No other has so
fully declared the necessity of wickedness and pun-
ishment, yet so effectually instructed individuals to
resist the one, and to escape the other ; no other has
ever pretended to give any account of the depravity
of man, or to point out any remedy for it ; no other
has ventured to declare the unpardonable nature of
sin without the influence of a mediatorial interposi-
tion, and a vicarious atonement from the sufferings of
a Superior Being.* Whether these wonderful doc-

* That Christ suffered and died, as an atonement for the sins
of mankind, is a doctrine so constantly and so stongly enforced
through every part of the New Testament, that whoever will
seriously peruse those writings, and deny that it is there, ma> ,
with as much reason and truth, after reading the works of
Thucydides and Livj^^, assert, that in them no mention is made
of any facts relative to the histories of Greece and Rome.

17J OF CHRISTIANITY. 13

trines are worthy of our belief, must depend on the
opinion vWiich we entertain of the authority of those
who published them to the world ; but certain it is,
that they are all so far removed from every track of the
human imagination, that it seems equally impossible
that they should ever have been derived from the
knov/ledje, or the artifice of man.

Some indeed there ?»re, who, by perverting the es-
tablished significdaon of Avords, (which they call ex-
plaining,) haA-'e ventured to expunge all these doc-
trines out of the Scriptures, for no other reason than
that they are not able to comprehend them ; and argue
thus : The Scriptures are the word of God ; in his
word no propositions contradictory to reason can have
a place ; these propositions are contradictory to rea-
sion, and therefore they are not there. But if these
bold asserters would claim any regard, they should
reverse their argument and say : These doctrines
make a part, and a material part of the Scriptures ;
they are contradictory to reason ; no propositions con-
trary to reason can be a part of the word of God ; and
therefore, neither the Scriptures, nor the pretended
revelation contained in them, can be derived from
him. This would be an argument worthy of rational
and candid deists, and demand a respectful attention ;
but when men pretend to disprove facts by reason-
ing, they have no right to expect an answer.

And here I cannot omit observing, that the personal
character of the author of this religion is no less
new and extraordinary than the religion itself: " who
spake as never man spake," (John 7: 49,) and lived
as never man lived. In proof of this, I do not mean
to allege that he was born of a virgin, that he fasted
2*

14 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [IS

forty days, that he performed a variety of miracles,
and that after being buried three days, he rose from
the dead ; because these accounts will have but little
effect on the minds of unbelievers, who, if they be-
lieve not the religion, will give no credit to the rela-
tion of these facts ; but I will prove it from facts which
cannot be disputed. For instance, he is the cnly
founder of a religion, m the history of mankind, which
is totally unconnected with all human 'policy and
government, and therefore totally unconducive to
any worldly purpose whatever. All others, Maho-
met, Numa, and even Moses himself, blended their
religious insr':utions with their civil, and by them ob-
tained dominion over their respective people; but
Christ neither aimed at, nor would accept of any such
power: he rejected every object which all other men
pursue, and made choice of all those which others
fly from, and are afraid of: he refused power, riches,
honors, and pleasures, and courted poverty, ignominy,
tortures, and deatli. Many have been the enthusiasts
and imposters who have endeavored to impose on
the world pretended revelation ; and some of them,
from pride, obstinacy, or principle, have gone so far
as to lay down their lives rather than retract ; but I
defy history to show one who ever made his oM'n suf-
ferings and death a necessary part of his original
plan, and essential to his mission. This Christ actu-
ally did; he foresaw, foretold, declared their neces-
sity, and voluntarily endured them. If we seriously
contemplate the Divine lessons, the perfect precepts,
the beautiful discourses, and the consistent conduct
of this wonderful person, we cannot possibly imagine
that he could have been either an idiot or a madman ;

19] OF CHRISTIANITY. 15

and yet, if he was not what he pretended to be, he
can be considered in no other light ; and even under
this character he would deserve some attention, be-
cause of so sublime and rational an insanity there is
no other instance in the history of mankind.

If any one can doubt of the superior excellence of
this religion above all which preceded it, let him but
peruse with attention those unparalleled writings in
which it is transmitted to the present times, and com-
pare them with the most celebrated productions of the
pagan world ; and if he is not sensible of their superior
beauty, simplicity, and originality, I will venture to
pronounce, that he is as deficient in taste as in faith,
and that he is as bad a critic as a Christian. In what
school of ancient philosophy can he find a lesson of
morality so perfect as Christ's sermon on the mount ?
From which of them can he collect an address to the
Deity so concise, and yet so comprehensive, so ex-
pressive of all that we want, and all that we could de-
precate, as that short prayer which he formed for, and
recommended to his disciples? From the works of
what sage of antiquity can he produce so pathetic a
recommendation of benevolence to the distressed, and
enforced by such assurances of a reward, as in those
words of Christ, " Come, ye blessed of my Father !
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the founda-
tion of the world : for I was a hungered, and ye gave
me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was
a stranger, and ye took me in ; I was naked, and ye
clothed me ; I was sick, and ye visited me ; I was in
prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous
ansAver him, saying. Lord, when saw we thee a hun-
gered, and fed thee, ^r thirsty and gave thee drink?

16 JEiNYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [20

when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in, or
naked and clothed thee ? or when saw we thee sick
and in prison, and came unto thee? Then shall he
answer and say unto them. Verily, I say unto you, in
asmuch as you have done it to the least of these my
brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matt. 25 : 34.
Where is there so just, and so elegant a reproof ot
eagerness and anxiety in worldly pursuits, closed with
so forcible an exhortation to confidence in the good-
ness of our Creator, as in these words : " Behold the
fowls of the air ; for they sow not, neither do they
reap, nor gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father
feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Consider the lillies of the field, how they grow ; they
toil not, neither do they spin ; and yet I say unto you,
that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed
like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass
of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into
the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye
of little faith ?" Matt. 6 : 26-28. By which of their
most celebrated poets are the joys reserved for the
righteous in a future state so sublimely described, as
by this short declaration, that they are superior to all
description : " Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nei-
ther have entered into the heart of man, the things
which God hath prepared for them that love him." 1
Cor. 2 : 9. Where, amidst the dark clouds of pagan
philosophy, can he show us such a clear prospect of a
future state, the immortality of the soul, the resurrec-
tion of the dead, and the general judgment, as in St.
Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians ? Or from whence
can K'^ produce such cogent exhortations to the prac-
\^ce of v'^Vv'iy virtue, such ardent incitements to piety

21J OF CHRISTIANITY. 17

and devotion, and such assistances to attain them, as
those which are to be met with throughout every page
of these inimitable writings ? To quote all the pas-
sages in them, relative to these subjects, would be al-
most to transcribe the whole. It is sufficient to observe,
that they are every where stamped with such appa-
rent marks of supernatural assistance, as render them
indisputably superior to, and totally unlike all human
compositions whatever ; and this superiority and dis-
similarity is still more strongly marked by one remark-
able circumstance peculiar to themselves, which is,
that whilst the moral parts, being of the most general
use, are intelligible to the meanest capacities, the
learned and inquisitive, throughout all ages, perpe-
tually find in them inexhaustible discoveries concern-
ing the nature, attributes, and dispensations of provi-
dence.

To say the truth, before the appearance of Chris-
tianity there existed nothing like religion on the face
of the earth, the Jewish only excepted : all other na-
tions were immersed in the grossest idolatry, which
had little or no connection with morality, except to
corrupt it by the infamous examples of their own ima-
ginary deities. They all worshiped a multiplicity of
gods and demons, whose favor they courted by impi-
ous, obscene, and ridiculous ceremcnies, and whose
anger they endeavored to appease by the most abomi-
nable cruelties. In the politest ages of the politest na-
tions in the world, at a time when Greece and Rome
had carried the arts of oratory, poetry, history, archi-
tecture, and sculpture to the highest perfection, and
made no inconsiderable advances in those of mathe-
matics, natural, and even moral philosophy^in reh-

18 JENYN3' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [22

gious knowledge they had made none at all — a strong
presumption, that the noblest efforts of the mind of
man, unassisted by revelation, were unequal to the
task. Some few, indeed, of their philosophers were
wise enough to reject these general absurdities, and
dared to attempt a loftier flight. Plato introduced many
sublime ideas of nature, and its first cause, and of the
immortality of the soul, which being above his own
and all human discovery, he probably acquired from
the books of Moses, or the conversation of some Jewish
rabbles, which he might have met with in Egypt,
where he resided, and studied for several years. From
him Aristotle, and from both, Cicero and some few
others, drew most amazing stores of philosophical
science, and carried their researches into divine truths
as far as human genius. alone could penetrate. But
these were bright constellations, which appeared sin-
gly in several centuries, and even these, with all this
knowledge, were very deficient in true theology. From
the visible works of the creation they traced the being
and principal attributes of the Creator ; but the rela-
tion which his being and attributes bear to man they
little understood ; of piety and devotion they had scarce
any sense, nor could they form any mode of worship
worthy of the purity and perfection of the divine na-
ture. They occasionally flung out many elegant en
comiums on the native beauty and excellence of virtue ;
but they founded it not on the commands of God, nor
connected it with a holy life, nor hung out the hap-
piness of heaven as its reward, or its object. They
sometimes talked of virtue carrying men to heaven,
and placing them amongst the gods ; but by this virtue
they meant only the invention of arts, or feats of arms ;

23] OP CHniSTlAMTV. ^^

for with them heaven was open only to le;;islatoi-s and
conquerors, the civilizers or destroyers of mankind.
This was, then, the summit of religion in the most
polished nations in the world ; and even this vv^as con-
fined to a few philosophers, prodigies of genius and
literature, who were little attended to, and less under-
stood by the generality of mankind in their own coun-
tries; whilst all the rest were involved in one com-
mon cloud of ignorance and superstition.

At this time Christianity jjroke forth from the
east like a rising sun, and dispelled this universal
darkness, which obscured every part of the globe, and
even at this day prevails in all those remote regions
to which its salutary influence has not as yet extend-
ed. From all those which it has reached, it has,
notwithstanding its corruptions, banished all those
enormities, and introduced a more rational devotion,
and pure morals : it has taught men the unity and
attributes of the Supreme Being, the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the dead, life everlastmg, and the
kingdom of heaven ; doctrines as inconceivable to the
wisest of mankind antecedent to its appearance, as
tue Newtonian system is at this day to the most igno-
rnnt tribes of savages in the wilds of America ; doc-
trines which human reason never could have discovered;
but which, when discovered, coincide with, and are
•confirmed by it ; and which, though beyond the reach
of all the learning and penetration of Plato, Aristotle,
ind Cicero, are now clearly laid open to the eye of
every peasant and mechanic with the Bible in his
nand. These are all plain facts, too glaring to be
contradicted ; and therefore, whatever, v/e may tiiink
of the authority of tliese books, the relations which

20 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE f24

they contain, or the inspiration of their authors — of
these facts, no man, who has eyes to read, or ears to
hear, can entertain a doubt; because there are the
books, and in them is this religion.

PROPOSITION III.

My third proposition is this : that from this book,
called the New Testament, may be collected a sys-
tem of ethics, in which every moral precept^ founded
on reason, is carried to a higher degree of puritT/
and perfection than in any other of the ancient philo-
sophers of preceding ages ; every moral precept,
founded on false priiiciples, is entirely omitted, and
many new precepts added, peculiarly corresponding
with the new object of this religion.

By a moral precept founded on reason, I mean all
those which enforce the practice of such duties as
reason informs us must improve our nature, and con-
duce to the happiness of mankind : such are piety to
God, benevolence to man, justice, charity, temperance,
and sobriety, with all those which prohibit the com-
mission of the contrary vices, all which debase our
natures, and, by mutual injuries, introduce universal
disorder, and consequently universal misery. By pre-
cepts founded on false principles, I mean those which
recommend fictitious virtues, productive of none of
these salutary effects, and therefore, however cele-
brated and admired, are in fact no virtues at all; such
are valor, patriotism, and friendship.

That virtues of the first kind are carried to a highei
degree of purity c.nd perfection by the ChristiaR-
religion than by any other, it is here unnecessary tt?

25] OP CHRISTIANITY. 21

prove, because this is a truth which has been fre-
quently demonstrated by her friends, and never once
denied by the most determined of her adversaries ; but
it will be proper to show, that those of the latter sort
are most judiciously omitted ; because they have
really no intrinsic merit in them, and are tot-ally in-
compatible with the genius and spirit of this institution.
Valor, for instance, or active courage, is for the
most part constitutional, and therefore can have no
more claim to moral merit than wit, beauty, health,
strength, or any other endowment of the mind or body 5
and so far is it from producing any salutary effects by
introducing peace^ order, or happiness in society, that
it is the usual perpetrator of all the violences which,
from retaliated injuries, distract the world with blood-
shed and devastation. It is the engine by Avhich the
strong are enabled to plunder the weak, the proud to
trample upon the humble, and the guilty to oppress
the innocent; it is the chief instrument which ambi-
tion employs in her unjust pursuits of wealth and
power, and is therefore so much extolled by her vota-
ries : it was indeed congenial with the religion of
pagans, whose gods were, for the most part, made out
of deceased heroes, exalted to heaven as a reward for
the mischiefs which they had perpetrated upon earth ;
an 1 therefore, with them this was the first of virtues,
ar i had even engrossed that denomination to itself.
But whatever merit it may have assumed among
pagans, with Christians it can pretend to none, and
lew or none are the occasions in which tbey are per-
mitted to exert it. They are so far from being allowed
to mflict evil, that they are forbid even to resist it ;,
they are so far from beins: encouraged to revenge in

Q ^ Infidelity.

22 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [26

juries, that one of their first duties is to forgive them;
so far from being incited to destroy their enemies,
that they are commanded to love them, and serve
them to the utmost of their power. If Christian
nations therefore were nations of Christians, all war
would be impossible and unknown amongst them, and
valor could be neither of use or estimation, and there-
fore could never have a place in the catalogue of
Christian virtues, being irreconcilable with all its pre-
cepts. I object not to the praise and honors bestowed
on the valiant : they are the least tribute which can
be paid them by those who enjoy safety and affluence
by the intervention of their dangers and sufferings :
I assert only, that active courage can never be a
Christian virtue, because a Christian can have nothing
to do with it. Passive courage is indeed frequently
and properly inculcated by this meek and suffering re-
ligion, under the titles of patience and resignation: a
real and substantial virtue this, and a direct contrast
to the former ; for passive courage arises from the
noblest dispositions of the human mind, from a con-
tempt of misfortunes, pain, and death, and a confi-
dence in the protection of the Almighty : active from
the meanest ; from passion, vanity, and self-depend-
ence. Passive courage is derived from a zeal for
truth, and a perseverance in duty ; active is the
offspring of pride and revenge, and the parent of cru-
elty and injustice ; in short, passive courage is the
resolution of a philosopher ; active, the ferocity of a
savage. Nor is this more incompatible with the
precepts, than with the object of this religion, which
IS the attainment of the kingdom of heaven ; for valor
is not that sort of violencf^ bv v.'hich that kingdom is,

27] OF CHRISTIANITY. 23

to be taken ; nor are the turbulent spirits of heroes
and conquerors admissible into those regions of peace,
subordination, and tranquility.

Patriotism, also, that celebrated virtue, so much
practised in ancient, and so much professed in modern
times ; that virtue which so long preserved the liber-
lies of Greece, and exalted Rome to the empire of the
world ; this celebrated virtue, I say, must also be ex-
cluded, because it not only falls short of, but directly
counteracts the extensive l3enevolence of this religion.
A Christian is of no country, he is a citizen of the
world ; and his neighbors and countrymen are the in-
habitants of the remotest regions, whenever their dis-
tresses demand his friendly assistance. Christianity
commands us to love all mankind ; patriotism to op-
press all other countries to advance the imaginary pros-
perity of our own. Christianity enjoins us to imitate
the universal benevolence of our Creator, who pours
forth his blessings on every nation upon earth ; patriot-
ism fo copy the mean partiality of an English parish
officer, who thinks injustice and cruelty meritorious
whenever they promote the interests of his own in-
considerable village. This has ever been a favorite
virtue with mankind, because it conceals self-interest
under the mask of public spirit, not only from others,
but even from themselves, and gives a license to in-
flict wrongs and injuries, not only with impunity, but
with applause ; but it is so diametrically opposite to
the great characteristic of this institution, that it ne-
ver could have been admitted into the list of Chris-
tian virtues.

Friendship, likewise, although more congenial to
the principles of Christianity, arising from more ten-

24 JENYNS' INTFRNAL EVIDENCE [28

der and amiable dispositions, could never gain admit-
tance amongst her benevolent precepts for the same
reason — because it is too narrow and confined, and ap-
propriates that benevolence to a single object which is
here commanded to be extended over all. Where
friendships arise from similarity of sentiments and dis-
interested affections, they are advantageous, agreeable,
and innocent, but have little pretensions to merit; for
it is justly observed, "If ye love them which love
you, what thank have ye ? for sinners also love those
that love them." Luke 6 : 32. But if they are formed
from alliances in parties, factions, and interests, or
from a participation of vices, the usual parents of what
are called friendships among mankind, they are then
both mischievous and criminal, and consequently for-
bidden ; but in their utmost purity they deserve no re-
commendation from this religion.

To the judicious omission of these false virtues we
may add that remarkable silence which the Christian
legislator every where preserves on subjects, esteemed
>y all others of the highest importance. Civil Govern-
ment, National Policy, and the Bights of War and
Peace. Of these he has not taken the least notice,
probably for this plain reason, because it would have
been impossible to have formed any explicit regula-
tions concerning them, which must not have been in-
consistent with the purity of his religion, or with the
practical observance of such imperfect creatures as
men, ruling over and contending with each other.
For mstance, had he absolutely forbid all resistance
to the reigning powers, he had constituted a plan of
despotism, and made men slaves ; had he allowed it
he must have authorized disobedience, and made thera

29J OF CHUISTIANITY. 25

rebels ; had he, in direct terms, prohibited all war, he
must have left his followers for ever an easy prey to
every infidel invader ; had he permitted it, he must
have licensed all that rapine and murder with which
it is unavoidably attended.

Let us now examine Wiiat are those new precepts
in this religion peculiarly corresponding with the new
object of it: that is, preparing us for the kingdom of
heaven. Of ihe?e, the chief are poorness of spirit, for-
giveness of injuries, and charity to all men; to these
we may add rerentance, faith, self-abasement, and a
detachment from the world, all moral duties peculiar
to this religion, and absolutely necessary to the attain-
ment of its end.

" Blessed are the 'poor in spirit, for theirs is the king-
dom of heaven." Matthew, 5 : 3. By which, poorness
of sp irit is to be understood a disposition of mind meek,
humnle, submissive to power, void of ambition, patient
of injuries, and free from all resentment. This was
so new, and so opposite to the ideas of all Pagan mo-
ralists, that they thought this temper of mind a crimi-
nal and contemptible meanness, which must induce
men to sacrifice the glory of their country and their
honor to a shameful pusillanimity ; and such it appears
to almost all who are called Christians, even at this
day, who not only reject it in practice, but disavow it
in principle, notwithstanding this explicit declaration
e.i their Master. We see them revenging the smallest
affronts by premeditated murder, as individuals, on
principles of honor; and, in their national capacities?
destroying each other with fire and sword for the low
considerations of commercial interests, the balance of

26 JENYNS- INTERNAL EVIDENCE [30

rival powers, or the ambition of princes. We see them
with their last breath animating each other to a savage
revenge, and, in the agonies of death, plunging with
feeble arms their daggers into the hearts of their oppo-
nents ; and, what is still worse, we hear all these bar-
barisms celebrated by historians, flattered by poets,
applauded in theatres, approved in senates, and even
sanctified in pulpits. But universal practice cannot
alter the nature of things, nor universal error change
the nature of truth. Pride was not made for men, but
humility, meekness, and resignation ; that is, poorness
of spirit was made for man, and properly belongs to
his dependent and precarious situation, and is the only
disposition of mind which can enable him to enjoy
ease and quiet here and happiness hereafter. Yet was
this important precept entirely unknown until it was
promulgated by him who said, " Suffer little children
to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of sue h is
the kingdom of heaven : Verily I say unto you, whoso-
ever shiU not receive the kindom of God as a little
child, h 1 shall not enter therein." Mark, 10 : 14.

Another precept equally new, and no less excellent,
is for gh en ess of injuries. "Ye have heard," says
Christ, " thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine
enemy ; lut I say unto you, love your enemies ; bless
them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,
and pray for them which despilefully use you and per-
secute you." Matthew, 5 : 43. This was a lesson so
new, and so utterly unknown till taught by his doc-
trines, and enforced by his example, that the wisest
moralists of the wisest nations and ages represented
the desire of revenge as a mark of a noble mind, and
the accomplishment of it as one of the chief felicities

31J OF CHRISTIANITY. 27

attendant on a fortunate man. 13 ut how much more
magnanimous, how much more benefici|T.l to mankind
is forgiveness ! It is more magnanimous^ because
every generous and exalted disposition of the human
mind is requisite to the practice of it, for these alone
can enable us to bear the wrongs and insults of wick-
edness and folly with patience, and to look down on the
perpetrators of them with pity, rather than indigna-
tion ; these alone can teach us that such are but a part
of those sufferings allotted to us in this state of proba-
tion ; and to know, that to overcome evil with good, is
the most glorious of all victories. It is the most bene-
ficial^ because this amiable conduct alone can put an
end to an eternal succession of injuries and retalia-
tions ; for every retaliation becomes a new injury, and
requires another act of revenge for satisfaction. But
would we observe this salutary precept, to love our
enemies, and do good to those who despitefully use
us, this obstinate benevolence would at last conquer
the most inveterate hearts, and we should have no
enemies to forgive. How much more exalted a cha-
racter therefore is a Christian martyr, suffering with
resignation, and praying for the guilty, than that of a
Pagan hero, breathing revenge, and destroying the in-
nocent? Yet noble and useful as this virtue is, before
the appearance of this religion it was not only unprac-
tised, but decried in principle, as mean and ignomini-
ous, though so obvious a remedy for most of the mise-
ries of this life, and so necessary a qualification for the
happiness of another.

A third precept, first noticed and first enjoined by
this institution, is charity to all men. What this is,
we may best learn from the admirable description

28 JENYNS' LNTERNAL EVIDENCE [32

painted in the following words: " Charity suffereth
long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunt-
eth not itself; is not puffed up ; doth not behave itself
unseemly ; seeketh not her own ; is not easily pro-
voked ; thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity,
but rejoiceth in truth; beareth all things; believeth
all things ; hopeth all things ; endureth all things."
1 Cor. 13 : 4. Here we have an accurate delineation of
this bright constellation of all virtues, which consists
not, as many imagine, in the building of monasteries,
endowment of hospitals, or the distribution of alms,
but in such an amiable disposition of mind as exer-
cises itself every hour in acts of kindness, patience,
complacency, and benevolence to all around us, and
which alone is able to promote happiness in the pre-
sent life, or render us capable of receiving it in an-
other: and yet this is totally new, and so it is declared
to be by the author of it : "A new commandment I
give unto you. that ye love one another ; as I have
loved you, that ye also love one another; by this shall
ail men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have lovt
one to another." John 13 : 34. This benevolent dispo-
sition is made the great characteristic of a Christian,
the test of his obedience, and the mark by which he
is to be distinguished. This love for each other is
that charity just now described, and contains all those
qualities which are there attributed to it: humility,
patience, meekness, and beneficence ; without which
we must live in perpetual discord, and consequently
cannot pay obedience to his commandment by loving
one another : a commandment so sublime, so rational,
and so beneficial, so wisely calculated to correct the
depravity, diminish the wickedness, and abate the

33] OF CHRISTIANITY. 29

miseries of human nature, that, did we universally
comply with it, we should soon be relieved from all
the inquietudes arising from our own unruly passions,
anger, envy, revenge, malice, and ambition, as well as
from all those injuries to which we are perpetually
exposed from the indulgence of the same passions in
others. It would also preserve our minds in such a
state of tranquility, and so prepare them for the king-
dom of heaven, that we should slide out of a life ot
peace, love, and benevolence, into that celestial socie-
ty, by an almost imperceptible transition. Yet was
this commandment entirely new, when given by him,
who so entitles it, and has made it the capital duty of
his religion, because the most indispensably necessary
to the attainment of its great object, the kingdom of
heaven ; into which, if proud, turbulent, and vindic-
tive spirits were permitted to enter, they must unavoid-
ably destroy the happiness of that state, by the opera-
tions of the same passions and vices by which they
disturb the present ; and therefore all such must be
eternally excluded, not only as a punishment, but also
from incapacity.

Repentance, by this, we plainly see, is another ncAV
moral duty strenuously insisted on by this religion,
and by no other, because absolutely necessary to the
accomplishment of its end ; for this alone can purge
us from those transgressions from which Ave cannot
be totally exempted in this state of trial and tempta-
tion, and purify us from that depravity in our nature
which renders us incapable of attaining this end.
Hence, also, we may learn that no repentance can re-
move this incapacity, but such as entirely changes the
nature and disposition of the offender , which, in the

30 JENYMS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [34

language of Scripture, is called " being born again."
Mere contrition for past crimes, and even the pardon
of them, cannot effect this, unless it operates to this
entire conversion or new birth, as it is properly and
emphatically named ; for sorrow can no more purify a
mind corrupted by a long continuance in vicious ha-
bits, than it can restore health to a body distempered
by a long course of vice and intemperance. Hence
also, every one who is in the least acquainted with
himself, may judge of the reasonableness of the hope
that is in him, and of his situation in a future state,
by that of his present. If he feels in himself a tem-
per proud, turbulent, vindictive, and malevolent, and
a violent attachment to the pleasures or business of
the world, he may be assured that he must be ex-
cluded from the kingdom of heaven ; not only because
his conduct can have no such reward, but because, if
admitted, he would find there no objects satisfactory
to his passions, inclinations, and pursuits ; and there-
fore could only disturb the happiness of others, with-
out enjoying any share of it himself.

Faith is another moral duty enjoined by this insti-
tution, of a species so new, that the philos- iphers of
antiquity had no word expressive of this idea, nor any
such idea to be expressed ; for the word w/o-t;?, or Jides^
which we translate faith, was never used by any Pa-
gan writer in a sense the least similar to that to
which it is applied in the New Testament, Avhere in
general it signifies an humble, teachable, and candid
disposition, a trust in God, and confidence in his pro-
mises. When applied particularly to Christianity, it
means no more than a belief of this single proposition,
that Christ was the Son of God ; that is, in the Ian-

35] OF CHRISTIANITY. 31

^uage of those writings, the Messiah, who was fore-
told by the prophets, and expected by the Jews ; who
was sent by God into the world to preach righteous-
ness, judgment, and everlasting life, and to die as an
atonement for the sins of mankind. This was all that
Christ required to be believed by those who were will-
ing to become his disciples : he who does not believe
this, is not a Christian; and he who does, believes the
whole that is essential to his profession, and ail that
is properly comprehended under the name of faith.
This unfortunate word has indeed been so tortured
and so misapplied to mean every absurdity which
artifice could impose upon ignorance, that it has lost
all pretensions to the title of virtue ; but if brought
back to the simplicity of its original signification, it
well deserves that name, because it usually arises
from the most amiable dispositions, and is always a
direct contrast to pride, obstinacy, and self-conceit.
If taken in the extensive sense of an assent to the
evidence of things not seen, it comprehends the exist-
ence of a God, and a future state, and is therefore not
only itself a moral virtue, but the source from whence
all others must proceed ; for on the belief of these all
religion and morality must entirely depend. It can-
not be altogether void of moral excellence, (as some
represent it,) because it is in a degree voluntary; for
daily experience shows us, that men not only pretend
to, but actually do believe, and disbelieve almost any
propositions which best suit their interests or inclina-
tions, and unfeignedly change their sincere opinions
with their situations and circumstances. For we have
power over the mind's eye, as well as over the body's
to shut it against the strongest rays of truth and reli-

82 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE f36

gion, whenever they become painful to us ; and to
open it again to the faint glimmerings of scepticism
and infidelity, when we " love darkness rather than
light, because our deeds are evil." John 3 : 19. And
this, I think, sufficiently refutes all objections to the
moral nature of faith, drawn from the supposition of
its being quite involuntary, and necessarily dependent
on the degree of evidence which is offered to our un-
derstandings.

Self- abasement is another moral duty inculcated by
this religion only ; which requires us to impute even
our own virtues to the grace and favor of our Creator,
and to acknowledge that we can do nothing good by
our own powers, unless assisted by his overruling in-
fluence. This doctrine seems at first sight to infringe
on our free-will, and to deprive us of all merit ; but,
on a closer examination, the truth of it may be de-
monstrated both by reason and experience, and that in
fact it does not impair the one, or depreciate the other ;
and that it is productive of so much humility, resigna-
tion, and dependence on God, that it justly claims a
place amongst the most illustrious moral virtues. Yet
was this duty utterly repugnant to the proud and self-
sufficient principles of the ancient philosophers, as well
as modern deists ; and therefore, before the publication
of the Gospel, totally unknown and uncomprehended.

Detachment from the loorld is another moral virtue
constituted by this religion alone; so nev/, that even
at this day few of its professors can be persuaded that
it is required, or that it is any virtue at all. By this
detachment from the world, is not to be understood a
seclusion from society, abstraction from all business,
or retirement to a gloomy cloister. Industry and labor

37] OP CHRISTIANITY. 53

cheerfulness and hospitality, are frequently recom-
mended ; nor is the acquisition of wealth and honors
pr'^hibited, if they can be obtained by honest means
and a moderate degree of attention and care ; but such
an unremitted anxiety and perpetual application as
engross our whole time and thoughts, are forbid, be-
cause they are incompatible with the spirit of this re-
ligion, and must utterly disqualify us for the attain-
ment of its great end. We toil on in the vain pursuits
and frivolous occupations of the world, die in our har-
ness, and then expect, if no gigantic crime stands in
the way, to step immediately into the kingdom of hea-
ven : but this is impossible ! for without a previous de-
tachment from the business of this world, we cannot
be prepared for the happiness of another. Yet this
could make no part of the morality of pagans, because
their virtues were altogether connected with this bu-
siness, and consisted chiefly in conducting it with ho-
nor to themselves and benefit to the public. But Chris-
tianity has a nobler object in view, which, if not at-
tended to, must be lost for ever. This object is that
celestial mansion of which we should never lose sight,
and to which we should be ever advancing during our
journey through life; but this by no means precludes
us from performing the business, or enjoying the amuse-
ments of travelers, provided they detain us not too long,
nor lead us too far out of our way.

It cannot be denied, that the great Author of the
Christian institution first and singly ventured to op-
pose all the chief principles of pagan virtue, and to
introduce a religion directly opposite to those erro-
neous, though long-established opinions, both in its
duties and in its object. The most celebrated virtues

4 Lifidelity.

34 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDtP.CS [38

of the ancients were high spirit, intrepid courage, and
implacable resentment.

Jmpiger, iracundus, inexorahilis^ acer, [turbulent,
irascible, implacable, virulent,] was the portrait of the
most illustrious hero, drawn by one of the first poets
of antiquity. To all these admired qualities, those of
a true Christian are an exact contrast ; for this religioii
constantly enjoins poorness of spirit, meekness, pa-
tience, and forgiveness of injuries. " But I say unto
you, that ye resist not evil ; but whoever shall smite
thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Matt. 5 : 39. The favorite characters among the pa-
gans were, the turbulent, ambitious, and intrepid, who,
through toils and dangers, acquired wealth, and spent
it in luxury, magnificence, and corruption; but both
these are equally adverse to the Christian system,
which forbids all extraordinary efforts to obtain wealth,
care to secure, or thought concerning the enjoyment
of it. " Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth,"
&c. " Take no thought, saying, Avhat shall we eat, or
what shall we drink, or wherewithal shall v/e be cloth-
ed? for after all these things do the Gentiles seek." Matt.
6 : 31. The chief object of the pagans was immortal
fame ; for this their poets sang, their heroes fought,
and their patriots died ; and this was hung out by their
philosophers and legislators as the great incitement
to all noble and virtuous deeds. But what says the
Christian legislator to his disciples on this subject?
" Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and shall
say all manner of evil against you falsely for my
sake ; rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your
reward in heaven." Matt. 5:11. So widely different j
IS the genius of the pagan and Christian morality, that

39l OF CHRISTIANITY, 35

I will venture to affirm, that the most celebrated vir-
tues of the former are not less opposite to the spirit, or
inconsistent with the end of the latter, than even their
most infamous vices ; and that a Brutus, wrenching
vengeance out of his hands to whom alone it belongs,
by murdering the oppressor of his country ; or a Cato,
murdering himself from an impatience of control,
leaves the world as unqualified for, and inadmissible
into the kingdom of heaven, as even a Messalina, or
a Heliogabalus, with all their profligacy about them.
Nothing, I believe, has so much contributed to cor-
rupt the true spirit of the Christian institution, as that
partiality which we contract from our earliest educa-
tion for the manners of pagan antiquity : from whence
we learn to adopt every moral idea which is repug-
nant to it ; to applaud false virtues, which that disa-
vows; to be guided by laws of honor, which that ab-
hors ; to imitate characters, which that detests ; and lo
behold heroes, patriots, conquerors, and suicides with
admiration, whose conduct that utterly condemns.
From a coalition of these opposite principles, Vv^as gen-
erated that monstrous system of cruelty and benevo-
lence, of barbarism and civility, of rapine and justice,
of fighting and devotion, of revenge and generosity,
which harassed the world for several centuries with
crusades, holy wars, knight-errantry, and single com-
bats ; and even still retains influence enough, under the
name of honor, to defeat the most beneficent ends of
this holy mstitution. I mean not by this to pass any
censure on the principles of valor, patriotism, or honor :
they may be useful, and perhaps necessary, in the
commerce and business of the present turbulent and
imperfect slate ; and these Avho are actuated by them

36 JENYNs' inti;rnal evidence [40

may be virtuous, honest, and even religious men : all
that I assert is, that they cannot be Christians. A
Christian may be overpowered by passions and temp-
tations, and his actions may contradict his principles ;
but a man, whose ruling principle is honor, however
virtuous he may be, cannot be a Christian, because he
erects a standard of duty, and deliberately adheres to
it, diametrically opposite to the whole tenor of that
religion.

The contrast between the Christian, and all other
institutions, religious or moral, previous to its appear
ance, is sufficiently evident ; and surely the superiority
of the former is as little to be disputed, unless any one
shall undertake to prove that humility, patience, for-
giveness, and benevolence are less amiable, and less
beneficial qualities than pride, turbulence, revenge, and
mali.'^nity: that the contemptof riches is less noble than
their acquisition by fraud and villainy, or the distribu-
tion of them to the poor less commendable than ava-
rice or profusion ; or that a real immortality in the
kingdom of heaven is an object less exalted, less ra-
tional, and less worthy of pursuit, than an imaginary
immortality in the applause of men : that worthless
tribute, which the folly of one part of mankind pays
to the wickedness of the other ; a tribute which a wise
man ought always to despise, because a good man
can scarce ever obtain.

CONCLUSION.

If I mistake not, I have now fully established th«
truth of ray three propositions : —

'llj OF CHRISTIANITY. 37

First, That there is now extant a book entitled the
New Testament.

Secondly, That from this book may be extracted a
system of religion entirely new ; both in its object,
and its doct-ines ; not only superior to, but totally un-
like every thing which had ever before entered into
the mind of man.

Thirdly, That from this book may likewise be col-
lected a system of ethics, in which every moral pre-
cept, founded on reason, is carried to a higher degree
of purity and perfection than in any other of the
wisest philosophers of preceding ages ; every moral
precept, founded on false principles, totally omitted ;
and many new precepts added, peculiarly correspond-
ing with the new object of this religion.

Every one of these propositions, I am persuaded, is
incontrovertibly true ; and if true, this short but cer-
tain conclusion must inevitably follow ; that such a
system of religion and morality could not possibly
have been the work of any man, or set of men, much
less of those obscure, ignorant, and illiterate persons
who actually did discover and publish it to the world;
and that therefore it must have been effected by the
supernatural interposition of Divine power and
wisdom; that is, that it must derive its origin from
God.

This argument seems to me little short of demon-
stration, and is indeed founded on the very same rea-
soning by which the material world is proved to be the
work of his invisible hand. We view with admiration
the heavens and the earth, and all therein contained;
Ave contemplate with amazement the minute bodies
of animals too small for perception, and the immense
4*

38 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [42

planetary orbs too vast for imagination. We are cer-
tain that these cannot be the works of man ; and there-
fore we conclude, with reason, that they must be the
productions of an omnipotent Creator. In the same
manner we see here a scheme of religion and morality
unlike and superior to all ideas of the human mind,
equally impossible to have been discovered by the
knowledge, as invented by the artifice of man ; and
therefore by the very same mode of reasoning, and
with the same justice, we conclude, that it must de-
rive its origin from the same omnipotent and omnis-
cient Being.

Nor was the propagation of this religion less ex-
traordinary than the religion itself, or less above the
reach of all human power, than the discovery of it
was above that of all human understanding. It is
well known, that in the course of a very few years it
was spread over all the priacipal parts of Asia and ot
Europe, and this by the ministry only of an inconsi-
derable number of the most inconsiderable persons t
that at this time Paganism was in the highest repute,
believed universally by the vulgar, and patronized by
the great ; that the wisest men of the wisest nations
assisted at its sacrifices, and consulted its oracles on.
the most important occasions. Whether these wero
the tricks of the priests or of the devil, is of no conse-
quence, as they were both equally unlikely to be ccjn-
verted, or overcome : the fact is certain, that, on the
preaching of a few fishermen, their altars were desert-
ed, and their deities were dumb. This miracle they
undoubtedly performed, whatever we may think of the
rest ; and this is surely sufficient to prove the author]
ly of their commission ; and to convince us, that ne.

43J OP CHRISTIANITY. 39

tlier their undertaking nor the execution of it could
possibly be their own.

How much this Divine institution has been cor-
rupted, or how soon these corruptions began ; how far
It has been discolored by the false notions of illiterate
ages, or blended with fictions by pious frauds ; or how
early these notions and fictions were introduced, it
may be difficult now precisely to ascertain ; but sure-
ly, no man, who seriously considers tliM excellence
and novelty of itt doctrines, the manner in which it
was at first propagated through the world, the persons
who achieved that wonderful work, and the originali-
ty of those writings in which it is still recorded, can
possibly believe that it could ever have been the pro-
duction of imposture or chance ; or that from an im-
posture the most wicked and bla-sphemous, (for if an
imposture, such it is,) all the religion and virtue now
existing on earth can derive their source.

But, notwithstanding Avhat has been here urged, if
any man can believe that, at a time when the litera-
ture of Greece and Rome, then in their meridian lus-
tre, were insufficient for the task, the son of a carpen-
ter, with twelve of the humblest and most illiterate
men, his associates, unassisted by any supernatural
power, should be able to discover or invent a system
of theology the most -sublime, and of ethics the most
perfect, which had escaped the penetration and learn-
ing of Plato, Aristotle, and Ciceio; and that from
this system, by their own sagacity, they had excluded
every false virtue, though universally admired, and
admitted every true virtue, though despised and ridi-
ruled by all the rest of the world ; — if any one can be-
lieve that these men could become impostors, for no

40 jenyn's internal evidence [44

other purpose than the propagation of truth, villains
for no end but to teach honesty, and martyrs, without
the least prospect of honor or advantage ; or that, if
ail this should have been possible, these [ew inconsi-
derable persons should have been able, in the course
of a few years, to have spread this their religion over
most parts of the then known world, in opposition to
the interests, pleasures, ambition, prejudices, and even
reason of mankind ; to have triumphed over the power
of princes, the intrigues of states, the force of custom,
the blindness of zeal, the influence of priests, the ar-
guments of orators, and the philosopliy of the world,
without any supernatural assistance ; — if any one can
believe all these miraculous events, contradictory to
the experience of the powers and dispositions of hu-
man nature, he must be possessed of much more faith
than is necessary to make him a Christian, and re-
main an unbeliever from mere credulity.

But should these credulous infidels, after all, be in
the right, and this pretended revelation be all a fable,
from believing it what harm could ensue ? Would it
render princes more tyrannical, or subjects more un-
governable ? the rich more insolent, or the poor more
disorderly? Would it make worse parents or children,
husbands or wives, masters or servants, friends or
rveighbors? Or would it not make men more virtuous,
and consequently more happy in every situation? It
could not be criminal ; it could not be detrimental. It
could not be criminal, because it cannot be a crime to
assent to such an evidence as has been able to con-
vince the best and wisest of mankind 5 by which, if
false. Providence must have permitted men to deceive
each other for the most beneficial ends, and which,

451

OF CHRISTIANITY. ^^

therefore, it would be surely more meritorious to be-
lieve from a disposition of faith and charity, which
believeth all things, than to reject, with scorn, from ob-
stinacy and self-conceit. It cannot be detrimental
because, if Christianity is a fable, it is a fable the be
lief of which is the only principle which can retain
men in a steady and uniform course of virtue, piety,
and devotion ; or can support them in the hour of dis-
tress, of sickness, and of death. Whatever might be
the operations of true deism on the minds of Pagan phi-
losophers, that can now avail us nothing ; for that light
which once lightened them, is now absorbed in the
brighter illumination of the Gospel : we can now form
no "rational system of deism but what must be borrow-
ed from, that source ; and, as far as it reaches towards
perfection, must be exactly the same ; and therefore,
if we will not accept of Christianity, we have no reli-
crion at all. Accordingly, we see that those who fly
from this, scarce ever stop at deism, but hasten on with
alacrity to a total rejection of all religious and moral
principles whatever.

If I have here demonstrated the divine origin of the
Christian religion by an argument which cannot be
confuted, no others, however plausible or numerous,
founded on probabilities, doubts, and conject-.res, can
ever disprove it ; because if it is once shown to be true,
it cannot be false. But as many arguments of this
kind have bewildered some candid and ingenuous
minds, I shall here bestow a few lines on those whicli
have the most weight, in order to wipe out, or at least
to diminish, their perplexing influence.

But here I must previously observe, that the most

42 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [46

insurmountable, as well as the most usual obstacle to
our belief, arises from our passions, appetites, and in-
terests ; for faith being an act of the will as much as
of the understanding, we oftener disbelieve for want
of inclination than want of evidence. The first step
towards thinking this revelation true, is our hope that
it is so ; for whenever we much wish any proposi-
tion to be true, we are not far from believing it. It
is certainly for the interest of all good men that its
authority should be well founded, and still more bene
ficial to the bad, if ever they intend to be better, be
cause it is the only system, either of reason or reli-
gion, which can give them any assurance of pardon.
The punishment of vice is a debt due to justice, which
cannot be remitted without compensation. Repen-
tance can be no compensation ; it may change a wick-
ed man's disposition, and prevent his offending for the
future, but can lay no claim to pardon for what is past.
If any one, by profligacy and extravagance, contracts
a debt, repentance may make him wiser and hinder
him from running into farther distresses, but can never
pay off his old bonds, for which he must be ever ac-
countable, unless they are discharged by himself, or
some other in his stead. This very discharge Chris-
tianity alone holds forth on our repentance, and, if
true, will certainly perform ; the truth of it, therefore
must ardently be Avished tor by all, except the wicked,
who are determined neither to repent nor reform. It
IS well worth every man's while, who either is, or in-
tends to be virtuous, to believe Christianity if he can,
uecause he will find it the surest preservative ap-ninst
ill vicious habits and their attendant evils ; the best
resource under distresses and disappointments, ill-

47] OF CHRISTIANITY. 43

health and ill-fortune ; and the firmest basis on whicii
contemplation can rest ; and without some, the human
mind is never perfectly at ease. But if any one is at-
tached to a favorite pleasure, or eagerly engaged in
worldly pursuits, incompatible with the precepts of
this religion, and he believes it, he must either relin-
quish those pursuits Avith uneasiness, or persist in
them with remorse and dissatisfaction, and therefore
must commence unbeliever in his own defence. With
such 1 shall not dispute, nor pretend to persuade men
by aiguments to make themselves miserable ; but to
those who, not afraid that this religion may be true,
aie really affected by such objections, I will offer the fol-
lowing answers, which, though short, will, I doubt not,
be sufficient to show them their weakness and futility.
In the first place, then, some have been so bold as
to strike at the root of all revelation from God, by as-
serting that it is incredible^ because unnecessary^ and
unnecessary because the reason which he has bestow-
ed on mankind is sufficiently able to discover all the
religious and moral duties which he requires of them,
if they would but attend to her precepts, and be guid-
ed by her friendly admonitions. Mankind have un-
doubtedly, at various times, from the remotest ages,
received so much knowledge by divine communica-
tions, and have ever been so much inclined to impute
it all to their own sufficiency, that it is now difficult
to determine what human reason, unassisted, can ef-
fect. But to form a true judgment on this subject, let
us turn our eyes to those remote regions of the globe
to which this supernatural assistance has never yet
extended, and we shall there see men endued with
sense and reason, not inferior to our own, so far from

44 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDEJICB [45

being capable of forming systems of religion and mo-
rality, that they are at this day totally unable to make
a nail or a hatchet; from whence we may surely be
convinced that reason alone is so far from being suffi-
cient to offer to mankind a perfect religion, that it has
never yet been able to lead them to any degree of cul-
ture or civilization whatever. These have uniformly
flowed from that great fountain of divine communica-
tion opened in the East, in the earliest ages, and thence
been gradually diffused in salubrious streams through-
out the various regions of the earth. Their rise and
progress, by surveying the history of the world, may
easily be traced backwards to their source ; and where-
ever these have not as yet been able to penetrate,
we there find the human species not only void of all
true religious and moral sentiments, but not the least
emerged from their original ignorance and barbarity ;
which seems a demonstration, that although human
reason is capable of progression in science, yet the first
foundations must be laid by supernatural instructions ,
for surely no other probable cause can be assigned why
any one part of mankind should have made such an
amazing progress in religious, moral, metaphysical, and
philosophical inquiries ; such wonderful improvements
in policy, legislation, commerce, and manufactures;
while the other part, formed with the same natural capa-
cities, and divided only by seas and mountains, should
remain, during the same number of ages, in a state little
superior to brutes, without government, without laws or
letters, and even without clothes and habitations ; mur-
dering each other to satiate their revenge, and devouring
each other to appease their hunger. I say no cause can
be assigned for this amazing difference, except that the

49*1 ON CHRISTIANITY. 45

first have received information from those divine com-
munications recorded in the Scriptures, and the latter
have never yet been favored with such assistance.
This remarkable contrast seems an unanswerable,
though, perhaps, a new proof of the necessity of reve-
lation, and a solid refutation of all arguments against
it, drawn from the sufficiency of human reason. And
as reason, in her natural state, is thus incapable of
making any progress in knowledge, so when furnished
with materials by supernatural aid, if left to the guid-
ance of her own wild imaginations, she falls into more
numerous and more gross errors than her own native
ignorance could ever have suggested. There is then
no absurdity so extravagant which she is not ready to
adopt ; she has persuaded some that there is no God ;
others, that there can be no future state ; she has taught
some that there is no difference betwee^i vice and vir-
tue, and that to cut a man's throat, and to relieve his
necessities, are actions equally meritorious ; she has
convinced many that they have no free will, in oppo-
sition to their own experience ; some, that there can
be no such thing as soul or spirit, contrary to their own
perceptions 5 and others, no such thing as matter or
body, in contradiction to their senses. By analyzing
all things, she can show that there is nothing in any
thing; by perpetual sifting, she can reduce all exis-
tence to the invisible dust of scepticism ; and, by re-
curring to first principles, prove, to the satisfaction of
her followers, that there are no principles at all. How
far such a guide is to be depended on, in the important
concerns of religion and morals, I leave to the judg-
ment of every considerate man to determine. This
is certain, that human reason, in its highest state of

5 Infidelity

46 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [5C

cultivation amongst the philosophers of Greece and
Rome, was never able to form a religion comparable
to Christianity ; nor have all those sources of moral
virtue, such as truth, beauty, and the fitness of things,
which modern philosophers have endeavored to sub-
stitute in its stead, ever been effectual to produce good
men ; and have themselves often been the productions
of some of the worst.

Others there are, who allow that a revelation from
God may be both necessary and credible, but alledge,
that the Scriptures, that is the books of the Old and
New Testament, cannot be that revelation ; because
in them are to be found errors and inconsistencies^
fabulous stories, false facts, and false philosophy,
which can never be derived from the fountain of all
wisdom and truth. To this I reply, that the Scrip-
tures are the history of a revelation from God : the
revelation itself is derived from God ; the history of
it is the production of men, and therefore the truth of
it is not in the least affected by their fallibility, but de-
pends on the internal evidence of its own supernatu-
ral excellence. If, in these books, such a religion as
has been here described actually exists, no seeming,
or even real defects found in them can disprove the
Divine origin of this religion, or invalidate my argu-
ment. Let us, for instance, grant that the Mosaic
history of the creation was founded on the erroneous
but popular principles of those early ages, who im-
agined the earth to be a vast plain, and the celestial
bodies no more than luminaries hung up in the con-
cave firmament to enlighten it; will it from thence
follow, that Moses could not be a proper instrument.
in the hands of Providence, to impart to the Jews a

51] OF CHRISTIANITY. 47

Divine law, because he was not inspired with a fore-
knowledge of the Copernican and Newtonian systems 7
or that Christ must be an impostor, because Moses
was not an astronomer? Let us also suppose thai
the accounts of Christ's temptation in the wilderness,
the devil's taking refuge in the herd of swine, with
several other narrations in the New Testament, fre-
quently ridiculed by unbelievers, were all but stories
accommodated to the ignorance and superstitions of
the times and countries in which they were written,
would this impeach the excellence of the Christian
religion, or the authority of its founder? The sacred
writers were undoubtedly directed by supernatural
influence in all things necessary to the great work
which they were appointed to perform. At particular
limes, and on particular occasions, they were enabled
to utter prophecies, to speak languages, and to work
miracles ; but in the science of history, geography,
astronomy, and philosophy, they appear to have been
no better instructed than others. They related facts
like honest men ; they recorded the divine lessons;
of their master with the utmost fidelity ; and apparent
discrepancies prove only that they did not act or
write in a combination to deceive, but do not in the
least impeach the truth of the revelation which they
published; which depends not on any external evi-
dence whatever. For I will venture to affirm, that if
any one could prove, what is impossible to be proved,
because it is not true, that there are errors in geogra-
phy, chronology, and philosophy, in every page of the
Bible, that the prophecies therein delivered are all
out fortunate guesses, or artful applications, and the
miracles there recorded no better than legendary

48 JENVNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCB [52

tales ; if one could show that these books were never
written by their pretended authors, but were posterior
impositions on illiterate and credulous ages; all these
wonderful discoveries Avould prove no more than this,
that God, for reasons to us unknown, had thought
proper to permit a revelation, by him communicated
to mankind, to be mixed with their ignorance, and
corrupted by their frauds from its earliest infancy,
in the same manner in which he has visibly permitted
it to be mixed and corrupted from that period to the
present hour. If, in these books, a religion superior to
all human imagination actually exists, it is of no con-
sequence, to the proof of its Divine origin, by Avhat
means it was there introduced, or with what human
errors and imperfections it is blended. A diamond,
though found in a bed of mud, is still a diamond ; nor
can the dirt, which surrounds it, depreciate its value
or destroy its lustre.

To some speculative and refined observers, it has
appeared incredible that a wise and benevolent Crea-
tor should have constituted a world upon one plan,
and a religion for it on another ,' that is, that he
should have revealed a religion to mankind which
not only contradicts the principal passions and incli-
nations which he has implanted in their natures, but
is incompatible with the whole economy of that world
which he has created, and in which he has thought pro-
per to place them. "This, (say they.) with regard to
Christianity, is apparently the case: the love of power,
riches, honor, and fame, are the great incitements to
generous and magnanimous actions ; yet by this insti-
tution are ail these depreciated and discouraged. Go-
vernment is essential to the nature of man, and cannot

53] OF CHRISTIANITY. ^^

be managed without certain degrees of violence, cor-
ruption, and imposition; yet are all these strictly
forbid. Nations cannot subsist without wars, nor
war be carried on without rapine, desolation, and
murder; yet are these prohibited under the severest
threats The non-resistance of evil must subject in-
dividuals to continual oppression, and leave nations
a defenceless prey to their enemies ; yet is this recom-
mended. Perpetual patience under insults and in-
iuries must every day provoke new insults and new
injuries; yet is this enjoined. A neglect of all we
eat and drink and wear, must put an end to all com-
merce, manufactures, and industry ; yet is this requir-
ed In short, were these precepts universally obeyed,
the disposition of all human affairs must be entirely
chancred, and the business of the world, constituted
as it'now is, could not go on." To all this I answer
that such indeed is the Christian revelation, though
some of its advocates may perhaps be unwilling to
own it, and such it is constantly declared to be by
him who gave it, as well as by those who published
It under his immediate direction: to these he says,
«If ye were of the world, the world would love his
own ; but because ye are not of the world, but I have
chosen you out of the world, therefore the world
hatethyou." John 15: 19. ^o the Jews he declares
« ve are of this world; I am not of this world." John
8 • 23 St Paul writes to the Romans, " Be not con-
formed to this world," Rom. 12 : 2 ; and to the Corin-
thians, " We speak not the wisdom of this world.
Cor 2- 6. St. James says, "Know ye not that the
friendship of the world is enmity with God ? whoso-
ever therefore will be a friend of the world is the
5*

50 JENrNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [54

enemy of God." James, 4: 4. This irreconcilable dis-
agreement between Christianity and the world is
announced in numberless other places in the Ne\v
Testament, and indeed by the whole tenor of those
Avritings. These are plain declarations, which in
spite of all the evasions of those good managers, who
choose to take a little of this world in their way to
heaven, stand fixed and immovable against all their
arguments drawn from public benefit and pretended
necessity, and must ever forbid any reconciliation
between the pursuits of this world and the Christian
institution: but they, who reject it on this account,
enter not into the sublime spirit of this religion, which
is not a code of precise laAvs designed for the well or-
dering of society, adapted to the ends of worldly con-
venience, and amenable to the tribunal of human
prudence ; but a Divine lesson of purity and perfec-
tion, so far superior to the low considerations of con-
quest, government, and commerce, that it takes no
more notice of them than of the battles of game-cocks,
the policy of bees, or the industry of ants. They
recollect not what is the first and principal object of
this institution; that it is not, as has been often re-
peated, to make us happy, or even virtuous in the
present life, for the sake of augmenting our happiness
here, but to conduct us through a state of dangers and
sufferings, of sin and temptation, in such a manner as
to qualify us for the enjoyment of happiness hereafter.
All other institutions of religion and morals were made
for the world, but the characteristic of this is to bt
against it ; and therefore the merits of Christian doc-
trines are not to he weighed in the scales of public util-
ity, like those of moral precepts, because worldly utii

55] OF CHRISTIANITY. 51

ity is not their end. If Christ and his apostles had
pretended that the religion which they preached would
advance the power, wealth, and prosperity of nations,
or of men, they would have deserved but little credit;
but they constantly profess the contrary, and every
where declare, that their religion is adverse to the
Vv'orld, and all its pursuits. Christ says, speaking of
his disciples, "They are not of the world, even as I
am not of the world." John, 17 : 16. It can therefore
be no imputation on this religion, or on any of its pre-
cepts, that they tend not to an end which their author
professedly disclaims : nor can it surely be deemed a
defect, that it is adverse to the vain pursuits of this
world ; for so are reason, wisdom and experience ; they
all teach us the same lesson, they all demonstrate to
us every day, that these are begun on false hopes, car-
ried on with disquietude, and end in disappointment.
This professed incompatibility with the little, wretch
ed, and iniquitous business of the world, is therefore
so far from being a defect in this religion, that, was
there no other proof of its divine origin, this alone, I
think, would be abundantly sufficient. The great plan
and benevolent design of this dispensation is plainly
this : to enlighten the minds, purify the religion, and
amend the morals of mankind in general, and to select
those of them Avho believe in its divine author and
obey his commands, to be successively transplanted
into the kingdom of heaven : which gracious offer is
impartially tendered to all, who by faith in him, per-
severance in meekness, patience, piety, charity, and
a detachment from the world, are willing to qualify
themselves for this holy and happy society. Was thiis
universally acceptedj and did every man observe strict-

52 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [56

ly every precept of the Gospel, the face of human af-
fairs and the economy of the world would indeed l)e
greatly changed ; but surely they would be changed
for the better ; and we should enjoy much more hap-
piness, even here, than at present : for we must not
forget, that evils are by it forbid, as well as resistance ;
injuries, as well as revenge ; all unwillingness to dif-
fuse the enjoyments of life, as well as solicitude to ac-
quire them ; all obstacles to ambition, as well as am-
bition itself; and therefore all contentions for power
and interest would be at an end ; and the world would
go on much more happily than it now does. But this
universal acceptance of such an offer was not ex
pected from so depraved and imperfect a creature as
man : it was foreknown and foretold by him who mada
it that few, very few, would accept it on these terms.
He says, " Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way
which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Malt. 7 : 14. Accordingly, we see that very few are
prevailed on by the hope of future happiness to relin-
quish the pursuit of present pleasures or interests ; and
therefore, these pursuits are little interrupted by the
secession of so inconsiderable a number. As the na-
tural world subsists by the struggles of the same ele-
ments, so does the moral by the contentions of the
same passion?, as from the beginning. The generality
of mankind are actuated by the same motives ; fight,
scuffle, and scramble for power, riches, and jik^sures,
witli the same eagerness ; all occupations and profes-
sions are exercised with the same alacrity ; and there
are soldiers, lawyers, statesmen, patriots, and politi-
cians, just as if Christianity had never existed. Thus,
we see this wonderful dispensation has answered alJ

57] OF CHRISTIANITY. 53

the purposes for which it was intended : it has en-
lightened the minds, purified the religion, and amended
tlie morals of mankind ; and, without subverting the
constitution, policy, or business of the world, opened
a gate, though a strait one, through which all, who
are wise enough to choose it, and are fitted for it, may
find an entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

Others have said, that if this revelation had really \
been from God, his infinite power and goodness could
never have sufiered it to have been so soon perverted
from, its original purity, to have continued in a state
of corruption througli the course of so many ages, and
at last to have proved so ineffectual to the reformation
of mankind. To these I answer, that all this, on exa-
mination, must be expected to result from the nature
of all revelations communicated to so imperfect a
creature as man, and from circumstances peculiar to
the rise and progress of the Christian in particular ;
for when this was first preached to the Gentile nations,
though they were not able to withstand the force of
its evidence, and therefore received it, yet they could
not be prevailed on to relinguish their old supersti-
tions, and former opinions, but chose rather to incor-
porate them with it ; by Avhich means it was necessa-
rily mixed with their ignorance, and their learning ;
by both which it was equally injured. The people de-
faced its worship by blending it with their idolatrous
ceremonies, and the philosophers corrupted its doc-
trines by weaving them up with the notions of the
Gnostics, Mystics, and Manichaeans, the prevailing
systems of those times. By degrees its irresistible
excellence gained over princes, potentates, and con-
querors to its interests, and it was s4jipported by their

54 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [68

patronage, but that patronage soon engaged it in their
policies and contests, and destroyed that excellence by
which it had been acquired. At length the meek and
humble professors of the Gospel enslaved these princes
and conquered these conquerors, their patrons, and
erected for themselves [in the Papal church] such a
stupendous fabric of wealth and power as the world
had never seen. They then propagated their religion
by the same methods by which it had been persecuted ;
nations were converted by fire and sword, and the van-
quished were baptized with daggers at their throats.
All these events we see proceed from a chain of causes
and consequences, which could not have been broken
without changing the established course of things by
a constant series of miracles, or a total alteration of
human nature. Whilst that continues as it is, the
purest religion must be corrupted by a conjunction
with power and riches ; and it will also then appear to
be much more corrupted than it really is, because many
are inclined to think that every deviation from its pri-
mitive state is a corruption. Christianity was at first
preached by the poor and mean, in holes and caverns,
under the iron rod of persecution ; and therefore many
absurdly conclude, that any degree of wealth or pow-
er in its ministers, or of magnificence in its worship,
are corruptions inconsistent with the genuine simpli-
city of its original state : they are ofiended, that mo-
dern bishops should possess titles, palaces, revenues,
and coaches, when it is notorious, that their predeces-
sors, the apostles, were despised wanderers, without
houses or money, and walked on foot. The apostles in-
deed lived in a state of poverty and persecution atten-
dant on their particular situation, and the work which

69] OP CHRISTIANITY. 55

they had undertaken ; but this was no part of their re-
ligion, and it can be no more incumbent on their suc-
cessors to imitate their poverty and meanness, than to
be whipped, imprisoned, and put to death, in compli-
ance with their example. These are all but the sug-
gestions of envy and malevolence, but no objections
to these favorable alterations in Christianity and its
professors ; which, if not abused to the purposes of
tyranny and superstition, are in fact no more than the
necessary and proper effects of its more prosperous
situation. When a poor man grows rich, or a servant
becomes a master, they should take care that their ex-
altation prompts them not to be unjust or insolent ;
but surely it is not requisite or right, that their be-
havior and mode of living should be exactly the samej
when their situation is altered. How far this institu-
tion has been effectual to the reformation of mankind,
it is not easy now to ascertain, because the enormities
which prevailed before the appearance of it are by time
so far removed from our sight that they are scarcely
visible ; but those of the most gigantic size still re-
main in the records of history, as monuments of the
rest. Wars in those ages were carried on with a fe-
rocity and cruelty unknown to the present : whole ci-
ties and nations were extirpated by fire and sword ;
and thousands of the vanquished were crucified and
impaled for having endeavored only to defend them-
selves and their country. The lives of new-born in-
fants were then entirely at the disposal of their pa-
rents, who were at liberty to bring them up, or expose
them to perish by cold and hunger, or to be devoured
by birds and beasts ; and this was frequently practised
without punishment, and even without censure. Gla-

56 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCI! [60

diators were employed by hundreds to cut one another
to pieces in public theatres for the diversion of the
most polite assemblies ; and though these combatants
at first consisted of criminals only, by degrees men of
the highest rank, and even ladies of the most illustri-
ous families, enrolled themselves in this honorable
list. On many occasions human sacrifices were or-
dained; and at the funerals of rich and eminent per-
sons, great numbers of the slaves were murdered as
victims pleasing to their departed spirits. The most
infamous obscenities were made part of their religious
worship, and the most unnatural lusts publicly avow-
ed and celebrated by their most admired poets. At
the approach of Christianity all these horrid abomina-
tions vanished ; and amongst those who first embraced
it, scarce a single vice was to bo found. To such an
amazing degree of piety, charity, temperance, pa-
tience, and resignation were the primitive converts
exalted, that they seem literally to have been regene-
rated, and purified from all the imperfections of hu-
man nature ; and to have pursued such a constant and
uniform course of devotion, innocence, and virtue, as
in the present times it is almost as difficult for us to
conceive as to imitate. If it is asked, why should not
the belief of the same religion now produce the same
effects 1 the answer is short, because to so great an
extent it is not believed. The most sovereign medi-
cine can perform no cure, if the patient will not be
persuaded to take it. Yet, notwithstanding all impe-
diments, it has certainly done a great deal towards
diminishing the vices, and correcting the dispositions
of mankind ; and was it universally adopted in belief
and practice, would totally eradicate both sin and pun-
ishment.

61J or CHRISTIANITY, 67

Objections have likewise been raised to the Divine
authority of this religion from the incredibility of some
of its doctrines^ particularly of those concerning the
Trinity, and atonement for sin by the sufferings and
death of Christ; the one contradicting all the princi-
ples of human reason, and the other all our ideas of
Divine justice. To these objections I shall only say,
that no arguments, founded on principles which we
cannot comprehend, can possibly disprove a proposi-
tion already proved on principles which we do under-
stand ; and, therefore, that on this subject they ought
not to be attended to. That three Beings should be
one Being, is a proposition which apparently contra-
dicts reason, that is, our reason ; but it does not from
ihence follow, that it cannot be true; for there are
many propositions which are above our reason, and
yet are demonstrably true. One is the very first prin-
ciple of all religion, the being of a God ; for that any
thing should exist without a cause, or that any thing
«hould be the cause of its own existence, are proposi-
tions equally contradictory to our reason ; yet one of
them must be true, or nothing could ever have existed.
In like manner the overruling grace of the Creator, and
the free-will of his creatures, his certain foreknowledge
of future events, and the uncertain contingency of
those events, are to our apprehensions absolute con-
tradictions to each other ; and yet the truth of every
one of these is demonstrable from Scripture, reason,
and experience. All these difficulties arise from our
imagining that the mode of existence of all beings
must be similar to our own ; that is, that they must
all exist in time and space ; and hence proceeds our
embarrassment on this subject. We know that no

a liifidolitj.

58 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [62

two beings, with whose mode of existence we are ac-
quainted, can exist in the same point of time, in the
same point of space, and that therefore they cannot be
one ; but how far beings, whose mode of existence bears
no relation to time or space, may be united, we cannot
comprehend ; and therefore the possibility of such a
union we cannot positively deny. In like manner our
reason informs us, that the punishment of the innocent,
instead of the guilty, is diametrically opposite to jus-
tice, rectitude, and all pretensions to utility ; but we
should also remember, that the short line of our reason
cannot reach to the bottom of this question : it cannot
inform us by what means either guilt or punishment
ever gained a place in the works of a Creator infinitely
good and powerful, whose goodness must have in-
duced him, and whose power must have enabled him
to exclude them. It cannot assure us, that some suf-
ferings of individuals are not necessary to the happi-
ness and well-being of the whole. It cannot convince
us, that they do not actually arise from this necessity,
or that for this cause they may not be required of us,
or that they may not be borne by one being for another ;
and therefore, if voluntarily offered, be justly accepted
from the innocent instead of the guilty. Of all these
circumstances we are totally ignorant ; nor can our
reason afford us any information, and therefore, we
are not able to assert that this measure is contrary to
justice, or void of utility. For, unless we could first
resolve that great question, whence came evil? we
can decide nothing on the dispensations of Provi-
dence ; because ihey must necessarily be connected
with that undiscoverable principle; and, as we know
not the root of the disease, we cannot judge of what

63] OF CHRISTIANITY. 59

is, or is not, a proper and effectual remedy. It is re-
markable, that, notwithstanding all the seeming ab-
surdities of this doctrine, there is one circumstance
much in its favor ; which is, that it has been univer-
sally adopted in all ages, as far as history can carry
us back in our inquiries to the earliest times; in which
we find all nations, civilized and barbarous, however
differing in all other religious opinions, agreeing alone
in the expediency of appeasing their offended deities
by sacrifices, that is, by the vicarious sufferings of men
or other animals. These notions could never have
been derived from reason, because it directly contra-
dicts it ; nor from ignorance, because ignorance could
never have contrived so unaccountable an expedient,
nor have been uniform in all ages and countries in
any opinion whatsoever ; nor from the artifice of kings
or priests, in order to acquire dominion over the people,
because it seems not adapted to this end ; and we find
it implanted in the minds of the most remote savages
at this day discovered, v\rho have neither kings nor
priests, artifice nor dominion amongst them. It must,
therefore, be derived from natural instinct, or super-
natural revelation, both which are equally the opera-
tions of Divine power.

It may be further urged, that however true these
doctrines may be, yet it must be inconsistent with the
justice and goodness of the Creator to require from
his creatures the belief of propositions which contra-
dict, or are above the reach of that reason which he
has thought proper to bestow upon them. To this I
answer, that genuine Christianity requires no such
belief. It has discovered to us many important truths,
with which we were before entirely unacquainted j

60 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [64

and amongst them are these, that three Beings are
someway united in the Divine essence, and that God
will accept of the sufferings of Christ as an atone-
ment for the sins of mankind. These, considered as
declarations of facts only, neither contradict, nor are
above the reach of human reason. The first is a pro-
position as plain as that three equilateral lines com-
pose one triangle ; the other is as intelligible as that
one man should discharge the debts of another. In
what manner this union is formed, or why God accepts
these vicarious sufferings, or to what purposes they
may be subservient, it informs us not, because no in-
formation could enable us to comprehend these myste-
ries ; and therefore it does not require that we should
know or receive them. The truth of these doctrmes
must rest entirely on the authority of those who taught
them ; but then we should reflect, that those were the
same persons who taught us a system of religion more
sublime, and of ethics more perfect, than any which
our faculties were ever able to discover; but which,
'when discovered, are exactly consonant to our reason ;
and that, therefore, we should not hastily reject those
informations which they have vouchsafed to give us,
of which our reason is not a competent judge. If an
able matliematician proves to us the truth of several
propositions, by demonstrations which we understand,
we hesitate not on his authority to assent to others,
the process of whose proofs we are not able to follow ;
why, therefore, should we refuse that credit to Christ
and his apostles which we think reasonable to give to
one another ?

Many have objected to the whole scheme of this
revelation as partial, fluctuating^ indeterminate^ un-

65] OP CHRISTIANITY. 61

iust, and unworthy of an omniscient and omnipotent
author, who cannot be supposed to have favored parti-
cular persons, countries, and times, with this Divine
communication, while others, no less meritorious, have
been altogether excluded from its benefits ; nor to have
changed and counteracted his own designs ; that is.
to have formed mankind able and disposed to render
themselves miserable by their own wickedness, and
then to have contrived so strange an expedient to re-
store them to that happiness which they need nevei
have been permitted to forfeit ; and this to be brought
about by the unnecessary interposition of a mediator.
To all this I shall only say, that however unaccountable
this may appear to us, who see but as small a part of
the Christian as of the universal plan of creation, they
are both, in regard to all these circumstances, exactly
analogous to each other. In all the dispensations of
Providence, with which we are acquainted, benefits are
distributed in a similar manner ; health and strength,
sense and science, wealth and power, are all bestowed
on individuals and communities, in different degrees
and at different times. The whole economy of this
world consists of evils and remedies ; and these, for the
most part, administered by the instrumentality of
intermediate agents. God has permitted us to plunge
ourselves into poverty, distress, and misery, by our
own vices, and has afforded us the advice, instruc-
tions, and examples of others, to deter or extricate us
from these calamities. He has formed us subject to
innumerable diseases, and he has bestowed on us a
variety of remedies. He has made us liable to hunger,
thirst, and nakedness, and he supplies us with food,
drink and clothing, usually by the administration of

62 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [G6

Others. He has created poisons, and he has provided
antidotes. He has ordained the winter's cold to cure
the pestilential heats of the summer, and the summer's
sunshine to dry up the inundations of the winter.
Why the constitution of nature is so formed, why all
the visible dispensations of Providence are such, and
why such is the Christian dispensation also, we know
not, nor have faculties to comprehend. God might
certainly have made the material world a system of
perfect beauty and regularity, without evils, and
without remedies ; and the Christian dispensation a
scheme only of moral virtue, productive of happiness,
without the intervention of any atonement or media-
tion. He might have exempted our bodies from all dis-
eases, and our minds from all depravity ; and we should
then have stood in no need of medicines to restore us
to health, or expedients to reconcile us to his favor.
It seems, indeed, to our ignorance, that this would have
been more consistent with justice and reason; but
his infinite wisdom has decided in another manner,
and formed the systems, both of nature and Christi-
anity, on other principles, and these so exactly similar,
that we have cause to conclude that they both must
proceed from the same source of Divine power and
wisdom, however inconsistent with our reason they
may appear. Reason is undoubtedly our surest guide
in all matters which lie within the narrow circle of
her intelligence. On the subject of revelation, her
province is only to examine into its authority ; and
when that is once proved, she has no more to do but
to acquiesce in its doctrines ; and, therefore, is never
so ill employed as when she pretends to accommodate
them to her own ideas of rectitude and truth. " God,"

67] OF CHRISTIANITY. 63

says this self-sufficient teacher, "is perfectly wise,
just, and good ;" and what is the inference ? " That all
his dispensations must be comformable to our notions
of perfect wisdom, justice, and goodness." But it
should first be proved that man is as perfect and as
wise as his Creator, or this consequence will by no
means follow ; but rather the reverse, that is, that the
dispensations of a perfect and all-wise Being must
probably appear unreasonable, and perhaps unjust, to
a being imperfect and ignorant; and, therefore, their
seeming impossibility may be a mark of their truth,
and, in some measure, justify that pious rant of a
mad enthusiast, " Credo, quia impossibile." [T believe
it, because it is impossible."] Nor is it the least surpris-
ing that we are notable to understand the spiritual dis-
pensations of the Almighty, when his material Avorks
are to us no less incomprehensible. Our reason can
afford us no insight into those great properties of
matter, gravitation, attraction, elasticity, and electrici-
ty, nor even into the essence of matter itself Can reason
teach us hoAV the sun's luminious orb can fill a circle,
whose diameter contains many millions of miles, v/ith
a constant inundation of successive rays during thou-
sands of years, without any perceivable diminution of
that body from whence they are continually poured,
or any augmentation of those bodies on which they
fall, and by which they are constantly absorbed ? Can
reason tell us how those rays, darted with a velocity
greater than that of a cannon ball, can strike the
lenderest organs of the human frame without infiicting
any degree of pain, or by what means this percussion
only can convey the forms of distant objects to an
immaterial mind ? or how any union can be formed

64 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [G8

between material and immaterial essences ? or how
the wounds of the body can give pain to the soul ; or
the anxiety of the soul can emaciate and destroy the
body ? That all these things are so, we have visible
and indisputable demonstration ; but how can they be
so, is to us as incomprehensible as the most abstruse
mysteries of revelation can possibly be. In short, we
see so small a part of the great whole ; we know so
little of the relation which the present life bears to
pre-existent an • future states ; we conceive so little oi
the nature of God, and his a tributes, or mode of ex-
istence ; we can comprehend so little of the material,
and so much less of the moral plan on which the uni-
verse is constituted, or on '^hat principle it proceeds,
that, if a revelation from fuch a Being, on such sub-
jects, was in every part faniliar to our understandings,
and consonant to our reason, we should have great
cause to suspect its Div'.ne authority ; and therefore,
had this revelation been less incomprehensible, it
would certainly have been more incredible.

But I shall not enter farther into the consideration
of these abstruse and difl&cult speculations, because
the discussion of them would render this short essay
too tedious and laborious a task for the perusal of
them for whom it was principally intended ; which
are all those busy or idle persons, whose time and
thoughts are wholly engrossed by the pursuits of bu-
siness or pleasure, ambition or luxury ; who know
nothing of this religion, except what they have ac-
cidentally picked up by desultory conversation or su-
perficial reading, and have thence determined with
themselves, that a pretended revelation, founded on
»j strange and improbable si story, so contradictory lo

r

69] OP CHRISTIANITY. 65

reason, so adverse to the world and all its occupa-
tions, so incredible in its doctrines, and in its precepts
so impracticable, can be nothing more than the im-
position of priestcraft upon ignorant and illiterate
ages, and artfully continued as an engine well adapted
to awe and govern the superstitious vulgar. To ta.k
to such about the Christian religion is to converse
with the deaf concerning music, or with the blind on
the beauties of painting. They want all ideas rela-
tive to the subject, and, therefore, can never be made
to comprehend it. To enable them to do this, their
minds must be formed for these conceptions by con-
templation, retirement, and abstraction from business
and dissipation ; by ill-health, disappointments, and
distresses ; and possibly by Divine interposition, or by
enthusiasm, which is usually mistaken for it. With-
out some of these preparatory aids, together with a
competent degree of learning and application, it is
impossible that they can think or know, understand or
believe, any thing about it. If they profess to believe,
they deceive others ; if they fancy that they believe
they deceive themselves. I am ready to acknowledge,
that thesft' gentlemen, (though endued with good un-
derstandings,) which have been entirely devoted to
the business or amusements of the world, must be
expected to pass no other judgment, and to revolt
from the history and doctrines of this religion. " Tlie
preaching Christ crucified was to the Jews a stumb-
ling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," (1 Cor. 1:
23 ;) and so it must appear to all who, like them,
judge from established prejudices, false learning,
and superficial knowledge ; for those who fail to
follow the o^aiu of its prophecy, to see the beauty

tl6 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE [70

and justness of its moral precepts, and to enter into
the wonders of its dispensations, will probably form
no other idea of this revelation but that of a confused
rhapsody of fictions and absurdities.

If it is asked, Was Christianity then intended only
for learned divines and profound philosophers? I an
swer, No. It was at first preached by the illiterate,
and received by the ignorant ; and to such are the prac-
tical, which are the most necessary parts of it, suffi-
ciently intelligible ; but many proofs of its authority
are drav/n from other parts, of a speculative nature,
opening to our inquiries inexhaustible discoveries con-
cerning the nature, attributes, and dispensations of
God, which cannot be understood without some learn-
ing, and much attention. From these the generality
of mankind must necessarily be excluded ; and must,
therefore, in respect to them, trust to others for the
grounds of their belief. And hence, perhaps, it is, that
faith, or easiness of belief, is so frequently and so
strongly recommended in the Gospel ; because, if men
require proofs of which they themselves are incapable,
and those who have no knowledge on this important
subject will not place some confidence in those who
have, the illiterate and unattentive must ever continue
in a state of unbelief. But then all such should remem-
ber, that in all sciences, even in the mathematics them-
selves, there are many propositions which, on a cur-
sory view, appear to the most acute understandings,
uninstructed in that science, to be impossible to be true,
which yet, on a closer examination, are found to be
truths capable of the strictest demonstration; and
that, therefore, in disquisitions on which we cannot
determine without much learned investigation, reason.

71 I OF CHRISTIANITY. 67

uninformed, is by no means to be depended Ou ; and
from hence they ought surely to conclude that it may
be at least as possible for them to be mistaken in dis
believing this revelation, who know nothing of the
matter, as for those great masters of reason and eru-
dition, Grotius, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Locke, Addi-
son, and Lyttelton, to be deceived in their belief; a
belief to which they firmly adhered after the most di-
ligent and learned researchers into the authenticity ot
Its records, the completion of the prophecies, the sub-
limity of its doctrines, the purity of its precepts, and
the arguments of its adversaries ; a belief which they
have testified to the world by their writings, without
any other motive than their regard for truth, and the
benefit of mankind. Should the few foregoing pages
add but one mite to the treasures with which these
learned writers have enriched the world ; if they
should be so fortunate as to persuade any of these mi-
nute philosophers to place some confidence in these
great opinions, and to distrust their own; if they
should convince them that, notwithstanding all unfa-
vorable appearances, Christianity may not be alto-
gether artifice and error; if they should prevail on
them to examine it with some attention ; or, if that is
too much trouble, not to reject it without any examina-
tion at all, the purpose of this little work will be suffi-
ciently answered. Had the arguments herein used,
and the new hints here flung out, been more largely
discussed, it might easily have been extended to a more
considerable bulk ; but then the busy would not have had
leisure, nor the idle inclination to have read it. Should
it ever have the honor to be admitted into such good
company, they will immediately, I know, determine

68 JENYNS' INTERNAL EVIDENCE, [73

that it must be the work of some enthusiast or fanatic,
some beggar, or some madman. I shall, therefore, beg
leave to assure them, that the author is very far removed
from all these characters. That he once, perhaps, be-
lieved as little as themselves, but having some leisure
and more curiosity, he employed them both in resolv-
ing a question which seemed to him of some impor-
tance— whether Christianity was really an imposture,
founded on an absurd, incredible, and obsolete fable,
as many suppose it — or whether it is, what it pretends
to be, a revelation communicated to mankind by the
interposition of supernatural power. On a candid in-
quiry, he soon found that the first was an absolute im-
possibility, and that its pretensions to the latter were
founded on the most solid grounds. In the farther pur-
suit of his examination, he perceived, at every step,
new lights arising, and some of the brightest from
parts of it the most obscure, but productive of the
clearest proofs, because equally beyond the power ot
human artifice to invent, and human reason to discover.
These arguments, which have convinced him of the
divine origin of this religion, he has here put together
in as clear and concise a manner as he was able, think-
ing they might have the same effect upon others ; and
being of opinion, that if there were a few more true
Christians in the world, it would be beneficial to them-
selves, and by no means detrimental to the public.

TBC fiRD.

£m<&^r ^^:& ^^i?^ mB^^<&^

WITH

THG BBISTS

IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND.

BY REV. CHARLES LESLIE, M. A.

Re-wrilten and condensed in a more modern styio

InMAity.

ft has been said of this brief and triumphant argument
of I eslie, that it is " the standing reproach of Deism ;" no
feerious reply to it having been even atte7nptc<U

SEJS1'^<©»2^ W^^^ ^^^^^^^

Dear Sir, — You are desirous, you inform me, to re-
ceive from me some one topic of reason, which shall
demonstrate the trut)\ of the Christian religion, and
at the same time distinguish it from the impostures of
Mahomet, and the heathen deities: that our Deists
may be brought to this test, and be obliged either to
renounce their reason and the common reason of man-
kind, or to admit the clear proof, from reason, of the
revelation of Christ ; which must be such a proof as
no impostor can pretend to, otherwise it Avill not prove
Christianity not to be an imposture. And you cannot
but imagine, you add, that there must be such a proof,
because every truth is in itself one : and therefore ono
reason for it, if it be a true reason, must be sufficient
apd, if sufficient, better than many : because multipL
city creates confusion, especially in weak judgments.

Sir, you have imposed a hard task upon me : I wish
I could perform it. For, though every truth be one,
yet our sight is so feeble that we cannot always come
to it directly, but by many inferences and laying of
things together. But, I think, tha\, in the case before
us, there is such a proof as you desire, and I will set
it down as shortly and as plainly as I can.

I suppose, then, that the truth of the Christian doc
trines *dll be sufficiently evinced, if the matters of

Leslie's method

L"

fact recorded of Christ in the Gospels are proved to be
true ; for his miracles, if true, establish the iiijlh. of
what he delivered. The same may be said v/ul re-
gard to Moses. If he led the children of Israel throbgh
the Red Sea, and did such other v/onderful things as
are recorded of him in the book of Exodus, it must ne-
cessarily follow that he v/as sent by God: these be-
ing the strongest evidences we can require, and which
every Deist will confess he would admit, if he him-
self had witnessed their performance. So that the
stress of this cause will depend upon the proof of
these matters of fact.

With a view, therefore, to this proof, I shall pro-
ceed,

I. To lay down such marks, as to the truth of mat-
ters of fact in general, that, where they ail meet, such
matters of fact cannot be false : and,

II. To show that they all do meet in the mattery of
fact of Moses and of Christ ; and do not meet in those
reported of Mahomet and of the heathen deities, nor
can possibly meet in any imposture whatsoever:

I. The marks are these :

1. That the fact be such as men's outward senses
can judge of:

2. That it be performed publicly, in the presence of
witnesses :

3. That there be public monuments and actions
kept up in memory of it ; and,

4. That such monuments and actions shall be es-
tablished, and commence, at the time of the fact.

The two first of these marks make it impossible for
any false fact to be imposed upon men at the time
when it was said to be done, because every man's

77' WITH THE DEISTS. 5

senses would contradict it. For example : Suppose I
should pretend that yesterday I divided the Thames
in the presence of all the people of London, and led
the whole city over to South wark on dry land, the wa-
ters standing like walls on each side : — it would be
morally impossible for me to convince the people of
London that this was true ; when every man, woman,
and child, could contradict me, and affirm that they
had not seen the Thames so divided, nor been led over
to Southwark on dry land. I take it then for granted,
(and I apprehend with the allowance of all the Deists
in the world,) that no such imposition could be put
upon mankind at the time when such matter of fact
was said to be done.

" But," it may be urged, " the fact might be invent-
ed when the men of that generation in which it was
said to be done were all past and gone ; and the cre-
dulity of after ages might be induced to believe that
things had been performed in earlier times, which
had not !"

From this the two latter marks secure us, as much
as the two first in the former case. For whenever such
a fact was invented, if it were stated that not only
public monuments of it remained, but likewise that
public actions or observances had been kept up in me-
mory of it ever since, the deceit must be detected by
no such monuments appearing, and by the experience
of e\ery man, woman, and child, who must know that
they had performed no such actions and practiced no
such observances. For example : Suppose I should
now fabricate a story of something done a thousand
years ago; I might perhaps get a few persons to be-
lieve me ; but if I were farther to add, that from that
7*

6 Leslie's method [78

day to this, every man, at the age of twelve years, had
a joint of his little finger cut off in memory of it, and
that of course every man then living actually wanted
a joint of that finger, and vouched this institution in
confirmation of its truth : it would be moially impos-
sible for me to gain credit in such a case, because every
man then living would contradict me, as to the cir-
cumstance of cutting off a joint of the finger ; and that,
being an essential part of my original matter of fact,
must prove the whole to be false.

II. Let us now come to the second point, and show
that all these marks do meet in tlie matters of fact of
Moses, and of Christ ; and do not meet in those re-
ported of Mahomet, and of the heathen deities, nor
can possibly meet in any imposture whatsoever.

As to Moses, he, I take it for granted, could not
have persuaded six hundred thousand men that he
had brought them out of Egypt by the Red Sea, fed
them forty years with miraculous manna, &c. if it had
not been true : because the senses of every man who
was then alive would have contradicted him. So that
here are the two first marks.

For the same reason, it would have been equally
impossible for him to have made them receive his
five books as true, which related all these things as
done before their eyes, if they had not been so done.
Observe how positively he speaks to them. " And
know you this day, for I speak not with your children,
which have not known, and which have not seen the
chastisement of the Lord your God, his greatness, his
mighty hand, and his stretched-out arm. and his mira-
cles— but your eyes have seen all the great acts of the
Lord which he did." Deut. ] 1 : 2-7. Hence we must

79] WITH THE DEISTS. 7

admit it to be impossible that these books, if written
by Moses in support of an imposture, could have been
put upon the people who were alive at the time when
such things were said to be done.

" But they might have been written," it may be
urged, " in some age after Moses, and published
as his !" t.

To this I reply, that, if it were so, it was impossible
they should have been received as such ; because they
speak of themselves as delivered by Moses, and kept
in the ark from his time; (Deut. 31 : 24-26,) and state
that a copy of them was likewise deposited in the
hands of the king, " that he might learn to fear the
Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and
hese statutes, to do them." Deut. 17 : 19. Here these
books expressly represent themselves as being not
only the civil history, but also the established munici-
pal law of the Jews, binding the king as well as the
people. In whatever age, therefore, after Moses, they
might have been forged, it was impossible they should
have gained any credit ; because they could not then
have been found either in the ark, or with the king, or
any where else : and, when they were first published,
every body must know that they had never heard of
them before.

And they could still less receive them as their book
of statutes, and the standing law of the land, by which
they had all along been governed. Could any man, at
this day, invent a set of acts of parliament for Eng-
land, and make it pass upon the nation as the only
book of statutes which they had ever known ? As im-
possible was it for these books, if written in any age
after Moses, to have been received for what they de-

8 Leslie's method [80

clare themselves to be ; that is, the municipal law of
the Jews ; and for any man to have persuaded that
people that they had owned them as their code of sta-
tutes from the time of Moses, that is, before they had
ever heard of them ! Nay, more : they must instantly
have forgotten their former laws, if they could receive
these books as such ; and as such only could they re-
ceive them, because such they vouched themselves to
be. Let me ask the Deists but one short question :
" Was a book of sham laws ever palmed upon any
nation since the world began ?" If not, with Avhat face
can they say this of the law books of the Jews ? Why
will they affirm that of them, which they admit never
to have happened in any other instance ?

But they must be still more unreasonable. For the
books of Moses have an ampler demonstration of their
truth than even ether law books have ; as they not
only contain the laws themselves, but give an histori-
cal account of their institution and regular fulfillment :
of the passover, for instance, in memory of their su-
pernatural protection upon the slaying of the first-
born of Egypt ; the dedication of the first-born of Israel,
both of man and beast ; the preservation of Aaron's
Rod which budded, of the pot of Manna, and of the
Brazen Serpent, which remained till the days of He-
zekiah. 2 Kings, 18 : 4, &c. And, besides these me-
morials of particular occurrences, there were other
solemn observances, in general memory of their deli-
verance out of Egypt, &.C. as their annual expiations,
their new moons, their Sabbaths, and their ordinary
sacrifices ; so that there were yearly, monthly, weekly,
and daily recognitions of these things. The same
books likewise farther inform us, that the tribe of Levi

81] WITH THE DEisra. 9

were appointed and consecrated by God as his minis-
ters, by whom alone these institutions were to be cele-
brated; that it was death for any others to approach
the altar; that their high-priest wore a brilliant mitie
and magnificent robes, with the miraculous Urim and
Thummim in his breast-plate ; that at his word all the
people were to go out, and to come in ; that these Le-
vites were also their judges, even in all civil causes,
Uhd that it was death to resist their sentence. Deul.
17:8-13; 1 Chron. 23 : 4.

Hence, too, in whatever age after Moses they might
have been forged, it was impossible they should have
gained any credit : unless indeed the fabricators could
have made the whole nation believe, in spite of their
invariable experience to the contrary, that they had
received these books long before, from their fathers ;
had been taught them when they were children, and
had taught them to their own children ; that they had
been circumci?3d themselves, had circumcised their
families, and uniformly observed their whole minute
detail of sacrifices and ceremonies ; that they had never
eaten any swine's flesh or other prohibited meats ; that
they had a splendid tabernacle, with a regular priest-
hood to administer in it, confined to one particular
tribe, and a superintendent high-priest, Avhose death
alone could deliver those that had fled to the cities of
refuge ; that these priests were their ordinary judges,
even in civil matters, &c. But this would surely have
been impossible, if none of these things had been prac-
ticed ; and it would consequently have been impossible
to circulate, as true, a set of books which affirmed that
they had practiced them, and upon that practice rested
their own pretensions to acceptance. So that here are
the two latter marks.

10 Leslie's method [82

" But," to advance to the utmost degree of supposi-
tion, it may be urged, " these things might have beeu
practiced prior to this alledged forgery; and those
books only deceived the nation, by making them be-
lieve that they were practiced in memory of such and
such occurrences as were then invented !"

In this hypothesis, however groundless, the same
impossibilities press upon our notice as before. For it
implies that the Jews had previously kept these obser-
vances in memory of nothing, or without knowing why
they kept them ; whereas, in all their particulars, they
strikingly express their original : as the Passover, in-
stituted in memory of Gcd's passing over the chil-
dren of the Israelites, when he slew the tirst-born of
Egypt, &c.

Let us admit, hov.^ever contrary both to probabilit-;-
and to matter of fact, that they did not know why they
kept these observances ; yet, was it possible to per-
suade them that they were kept in memory of some-
thing which they had never heard of before ? For ex-
ample : Suppose I should now forge some romantic
story of strange things done a long while ago ; and, in
confirmation of this, should endeavor to convince the
Christian world that they had regularly, from that pe-
riod to this, kept holy the first day of the week, in me-
mory of such or such a man : a Caesar, or a Mahomed :
and had all been baptized in his name, and sworn by
it upon the very book which I had then fabricated,
and which of course they had never seen before in
their public courts of judicature; that this book like-
wise contained their laws, civil and ecclesiastical,
which they had ever since his time acknowledged, and
no other; — I ask any Deist, v/hether he thinks it pos-

83] WITH THE DEISTS. 11

sible that such a cheat could be received as the Gospel
of Christians, or not? The same reason holds wiin
regard to the bocks of Moses, and must hold with
regard to every book which contains matters of fact
accompanied by the abovernentioned four marks. For
these marks, together, secure mankind from imposi-
tion, with regard to any false fact, as well in after
ages, as at the time when it was said to be done.

Let me produce, as another and a familiar illustra-
tion, the Stonehenge of Salishury Plain. Almost
every body has seen or heard of it ; and yet nobody
knows by whom, or in memory of what, it was set up.

Now, suppose I should write a book to-morrow, and
state in it that these huge stones were erected by a
Caesar or a Mahomed, in memory of such and such of
their actions ; and should farther add, that this book
v/as written at the time when those actions were per-
formed, and by the doers themselves, or by eye wit-
nesses ; and had ueen constantly received as true, and
quoted by authors of the greatest credit in regular suc-
cession ever since ; that it was well known in England,
and even enjoined by Act of Parliament to be taught
our children ; and that we accordingly did teach it our
children, and had been taught it ourselves when we
^vere children ; would this, I demand of any Deist,
pass current in England 1 Or, rather, should not I, or
any other person who might insist upon its reception,
instead of being believed, be considered insane ?

Let us compare, then, this rude structure with the
Stonehenge, as I may call it, or " twelve stones " set up
at Gilgal. Joshua, 4 : G. It is there said that the rea-
son why they were set up was, that when the children
of the Jews, in after ages, should ask their meaning,

12 Leslie's metkod {84

it should be told them. Ch. 4 : 20—22. And the thing,
in memory of which they were set up, the passage
over Jordan, was such as could not possibly have been
imposed upon that people at the time when it was
said to be done: it was not less miraculous, and from
the previous notice, preparations, and other striking
circumstances of its performance, (3 : 5, 15,) still
more unassailable by the petty cavils of infidel so-
phistry, than their passage through the Red Sea.

Novv'', to form our argument, let us suppose that there
never was any such thing as that passage over Jor-
dan ; that these stones at Gilgal had been set up on
some unknown occasion ; and that some designing
man, in an after-age, invented this book of Joshua, af-
firmed that it was written at the time of that imaginary
event by Joshua himself, and adduced this pile ot
stones as a testimony of its truth ; would not every
body say to him, " We know this pile very well, but
we never before heard of this reason for it, nor of this
book of Joshua. Where has it lain concealed all this
while ? And where and how came you, after so long
a period, to find it? Besides, it informs us that this
passage over Jordan was solemnly directed to be taught
our children from age to age ; and, to that end, thai
they Avere always to be instructed in the meaning ol
this particular monument: but we were never taught
it ourselves, w^hen we v/ere children, nor did we ever
teach it to our children. And it is in the highest de-
gree improbable that such an emphatic ordinance
should have been forgotten during the continuance o(
so remarkable a pile of stones, set up expressly for the
purpose of preserving its remembrance."

If, then, for these reasons, no such fabrication could

85j WITH THE DEISTS. 13

be put upon us, as to the stones in Salisbury Plain^
how much less could it succeed as to the stonage at
Gilgal ? If, where we are ignorant of the true origin
of a mere naked monument, such a sham origin can-
not be imposed, how much less practicable would it be
lo impose upon us in actions and observances which
We celebrate in memory of what we actually know ;
to make us forget what we have regularly commemo-
rated ; and to persuade us that we have constantly
kept such and such institutions, with reference to
something which we never heard of before ; that is,
that we knew something before we knew it ! And, il
we find it thus impossible to practice deceit, even in
cases which have not the above four marks, how
much more impossible must it be that any deceit
should be practiced in cases in which all these four
marks meet ?

In the matters of fact of Christ likewise, as well as
m those of Moses, these four marks are to be found.
The reasoning, indeed, which has been already advanc-
ed with resspect to the Old Testament, is generally
applicable to the New. The miracles of Christ, like
those of Moses, were such as men's outward senses
could judge of; and were performed publicly, in the
presence of those to whom the history of them, con-
tained in the Gospel, was addressed. And it is relat-
ed, that " about three thousand " at one time, (Acts,
2 : 41,) and about " five thousand" at another, (4 : 4,)
were converted in consequence of what they them-
selves saw and heard, in matters where it was impos-
sible that they should have been deceived. Here, there-
fore, were the two first marks.

And, with regard to the two latter, Baptism and the

g Infidelity.

14 Leslie's method [86

Lord's Sapper were instituted as memorials of certain
things, not in after ages, but at the time when these
things were said to be done ; and have been strictly ob-
served,/ro?7i ^Aa^ time to this ^ without interruption.
Christ himself also ordained Apostles, &c. to preach
and administer his ordinances, and to govern his
church " even unto the end «f the world." Now", the
Christian ministry is as notorious a matter of fact
among us as the setting apart of the tribe of Levi was
among the Jews ; and as the era and object of their
appointment are part of the C'ospel-narrative, if that
narrative had been a fiction of some subsequent age,
at the time of its fabrication no such order of men
could have been found, which vould have effectually
given the lie to the whole story. And the truth of the
matters of fact of Christ, being no otherwise asserted
than as there were at the time (whenever the Deist
will suppose the Gospel to have been fabricated) pub-
lic ordinances, and a public ministry of his institution
to dispense them, and it being impossible, upon this
hypothesis, that there could be any such things then
in existence, we must admit it to be equally impossi-
ble that the forgery should have been successful.
Hence, it was as impossible to deceive mankind, in
respect to these matters of f^ict, by inventing them in
after ages, as at the time when they were said to be
done.

The matters of fact reported of Mahomed and of
the heathen deities, do all want some of these four
marks by which the certainty of facts is established.
Mahomed himself, as he tells us in his Koran, (6, &c.)
pretended to no miracles ; and those which are com-
monly related of him pass, even among his followers,

87] WITH THE DEIril'S. 15

for ridiculous legends, and as such are rejected by-
heir scholars and philosophers. They have not ei-
ther of the two first marks ; for his converse Avith the
moon, his night-journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, and
thence to heaven, &c. were not performed before any
witnesses, nor was the tour indeed of a nature to ad-
mit human attestation : and to the two latter they do
not even affect to advance any claim.

The same may be affirmed, with little variation,
of the stories of the heathen deities : of Mercury's
stealing sheep, Jupiter's transforming himself into a
bull, &c. besides the absurdiry of such degrading and
piofligate adventures. And, accordingly we find that
the more enlightened Pagans themselves considered
them as fables involving a mystical meaning, of which
several of their writers have endeavored to give us
the explication. It is true, these gods had their priests,
their feasts, their games, and other public ceremonies ;
but all these want the fourth mark, of commencing at
the time when the things which they commemorate
were said to have been done. Hence they cannot se-
cure mankind, in subsequent ages, from imposture, j^s
they furnish no internal means of detection, at the
period of the forgery. The Bacchanalia^ for exam-
ple, and other heathen festivals, were established long
after the events to which they refer ; and the priests of
Juno, Mar?, &c. were not ordained by those imagi-
nary deities, but appointed by others in some after
a?'i, and are therefore no evidence to the truth of their
Yjreternatural achievements.

To apply what has been said :

We may challenge all the Deists in the world to

16 LESLIE S METHOD [88

show any fabulous action accompanied by these four
marks. The thing is impossible. The histories ol
the Old and New Testament never could have been
received, if they had not been true ; because the priest-
hoods of Levi and of Christ, the observance of the
Sabbath, the Passover and Circumcision, and the ordi-
nances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, &c. are
there represented as descending uninterruptedly from
the times of their respective institution. And it would
have been as impossible to persuade men in after ages
that they had been circumcised or baptized, and cele-
brated Passovers, Sabbaths, and other ordinances, un-
der the ministration of a certain order of priests, if they
had done none of those things, as to make them be-
lieve at the time, without any real foundation, that
they had gone through seas on dry land, seen the
dead raised, &c. But, without such a persuasion, i*
was impossible that either the Law or the Gospel could
have been received. And the truth of the matters oi
fact of each being no otherwise asserted than as such
public ceremonies had been previously practiced, their
certainty is established upon the full conviction of

THE SENSES OF MANKIND.

I do not say that every thing which wants these
four marks is false ; but that every thing which has
them all, must be true.

I can have no doubt that there was such a man as
Julius Caesar, that he conquered at Pharsalia, and was
killed in the Senate-house, though neither his actions
nor his assassination be commemorated by any publir
observances. But this shoAvs that the matters of fac'
of Moses and of Christ have come down to u»
better certified than any other whatsoever. And yei

89] WITH THE DEISTS. 17

our Deists. Avho would consider any one as hopelessly
irrational that should offer to deny the existence of
Caesar, value themselves as the only men of profound
sense and judgment, for ridiculing the histories of
Moses and of Christ, though guarded by infallible
marks, which that of Caesar wants.

Besides, the nature of the subject would of itself
lead to a more minute examination of the one than of
the other : for of what consequence is it to me, or to
the world, whether there ever was such a man as Cse-
sar, whether he conquered at Pharsalia, and was kill-
ed in the Senate-house, or not ? But our eternal wel-
fare is concerned in the truth of what is recorded in
the Scriptures ; whence they would naturally be more
narrowly scrutinized, when proposed for acceptance.

How unreasonable, then, is it to reject matters of
fact so important, so sifted, and so attested ; and yet
to think it absurd, even to madness, to deny other
matters of fact — w^hich have not the thousandth part
of their evidence — have had comparatively little in-
vestigation— and are of no consequence at all !

>t^-*^'

To the preceding four marks, which are common
to the matters of fact of Moses and of Christ, I sub-
join four additional marks ; the three last of which,
no matter of fact, how true soever, either has had, or
can have, except that of Christ.

This will obviously appear, if it be considered,

^. TItat the book Avhich relates the facts, containa

18 Leslie's method [90

likewise the laws of the people to whom it belonsfs ■

6. That Christ was previously announced, for that
rery period, by a long train of prophcrifs ; and,

7. Still more peculiarly prefigured by types^ both
of a circumstantial and personal nature, from the ear-
liest ages ; and,

8. That the facts of Christianity are such as to
make it impossible for either their relaters or hearers
to believe them, if false, without supposing a univer-
sal deception of the senses of mankind.

The fifth mark, which has been subordinately dis-
cussed above, in such a manner as to supersede the
necessity of dwelling upon it here, renders it impossi-
ble for any one to have imposed such a book upon any
people. For example : Suppose I should forge a code
of laws for Great Britain, and publish it next terra ;
could I hope to persuade the judges, lawyers, and peo-
ple, that this was their genuine statute-book, by which
all their causes had been determined in the public
courts for so many centuries past ! Before they could
be brought to this, they must totally forget their esta-
blished laws, which they had so laboriously commit-
ted to memory, and so familiarly quoted in every day's
practice; and believe that this new book, which they
had n?ver seen before, Avas that old book which had
been pleaded so long in Westminster-Hall, which has
been so often printed, and of which the originals arc
now so carefully preserved in the Tower.

This applies strongly to the books of Moses, in
which, not only the history of the Jews, but likewise
their whole law, secular and ecclesiastical, was con-
tained. And though, from the early extension and
destined universality of the Christian system, it could

91] WITH THE DEISTS. 19

not, without unnecessary confusion, furnish a nniform
civil code to all its various followers, who Vv^ere alrea-
dy under the government of laws in some degree
adapted to their respective climates and characters,
yet was it intended as the spiritual guide of the new
church. And in this respect, this mark is still strong-
er with regard to the Gospel than even to the books
of Moses ; inasmuch as it is easier (however hard) to
imagine the substitution of an entire statute-book in
one particular nation, than that all the nations of
Christendom should have unanimously conspired in
the forgery. But, without such a conspiracy, such a
forgery could never have succeeded, as the Gospel
universally formed a regular part of their daily public
offices.

But I hasten to the sixth mark, namely, Pro-
fhecy.

The great fact of Christ's coming was previously-
announced to the Jews, in the Old Testament, " by
all the holy Prophets which have been since the
world began." Luke, 1 : 70.

The first promise upon the subject was made to
Adam, immediately after the fall. Gen. 3 : 15. Com-
pare Col. 2 : 15, and Hebrews, 2 : 14.

He was again repeatedly promised to Abraham,
(Gen. 12: 3. 18: 18, and 22: 18, Gal. 3: 16,) to Issac,
(Gen. 26 : 4,) and to Jacob, Gen. 28 : 14.

Jacob expressly prophesied of him, under the appel-
lation of " Shiloh," or Him that was to be sent, Gen.
49: 10. Balaam also, with the voice of inspiration,
pronounced him "the Star of Jacob, and the Sceptre
of Israel." Numb. 24 : 17. Moses spake of him as
One " greater than himself." Deut. 18 : 15, 18, 19 ;

20 Leslie's method [92

Acts, 3: 22. And Daniei hailed his arrival, under
ihe name of " Messiah the Prince." Chap. 9 : 25.

It was foretold that he should be born of a virgin,
(Isa. 7: 14,) in the city of Bethlehem, (Micah, 5: 2,)
of the seed of Jesse; (Isa. 11: 1, 10;) that he should
lead a life of poverty and suffering, (Psalm, 22,) in-
flicted upon him, "not for himself," (Dan. 9: 26,) but
for the sins of others ; (Isa. 53 ;) and, after a short con-
finement in the grave, should rise again ; (Psalm, 16 :
10. Acts, 2: 27, 31, and 13: 35—37 ;) that he "should
sit upon the throne of David for ever," and be called
" the mighty God," (Isa. 9 : 6, 7,) " the Lord our Righ-
teousness;" (Jer. 33: 16;) "Immanuel, that is, God
with us ;" (Isa. 7 : 14 ; Matt. 1 : 23 ;) and by David him-
self, whose son he was according to the flesh, "Lord."
Vsalm, 110: 1, applied to Christ by himself, Matt.
22 : 44, and by Peter, Acts, 2 : 34.

The time of his incarnation was to be, before "the
Sceptre should depart from Judah^'' (Gen. 49: 10,)
during the continuance of the second Temple, (Hag.
2: 7, 9,) and within seventy weeks, or 490 days, that
is, according to the constant interpretation of pro-
phecy, 490 years from its erection, Dan. 9: 24.

From these, and many other predictions, the com-
ing of Christ was at all times the general expectation
of the Jews; and fully matured at the time of his ac-
tual advent, as may be inferred from the number of
false Messiahs who appeared about that period.

That he was likewise the expectation of the Gen-
tiles, (in conformity to the prophecies of Gen. 49 : 10,
and Hag. 2 : 7, where the terms " People," and " Na-
tions" denote the Heathen world,) is ev^inced by the
comiuL; of the wise men from the East, &c. a story

83] WITH THE DEtfTS- 21

which would of course have been contradicted by-
some of the individuals so disgracefully concerned in
It, if the fact of their arrival, and the consequent mas-
sacre of the infants in and about Bethlehem, had not
been fresh in every one's memory : by them, for in-
stance, who afterward suborned false witnesses against
Christ, and gave large money to the soldiers to con-
ceal, if possible, the event of his resurrection ; or them
who, in still later days, every where zealously " spake
against" the tenets and practices of his rising church.

All over the East, indeed, there w^as a general
tradition, that about that time a king of the Jews
wotdd be born, who should govern the whole earth.
This prevailed so strongly at Rome, a few months be-
fore the birth of Augustus, that the Senate made a
decree to expose all the children born that year ; but
the execution of it was eluded by a trick of some
of the senators, who, from the pregnancy of their
wives, were led to hope that they might be the fa-
thers of the promised Prince. Its currency is also
recorded with a remarkable identity of phrase by the
pens of Suetonius and Tacitus. Now, that in this
there was no collusion between the Chaldeans, Ro-
mans, and Jews, is sufficiently proved by the despe-
rate methods suggested, or carried into effect, for its
discomfiture. Nor, in fact, is it practicable for whole
nations of contemporary (and still less, if possible,
for those of successive) generations to concert a
story perfectly harmonious in all its minute ac-
companiments of time, place, manner, and other cir-
cumstances.

In addition to the above general predictions of the
coming, life, death, and resurrection of Christ, there

82 Leslie's method [94

are others which foretell still more strikingly several
particular incidents of the Gospel narrative ; instances
unparalleled in the whole range of history, and which
could have been foreseen by God alone. They were
certainly not foreseen by the human agents concerned
in their execution, or they would never have contri-
buted to the fulfillment of prophecies referred even by
themselves to the Messiah, and therefore verifying the
divine mission of Him whom they crucified as an im-
postor.

Observe, then, how literally many of these predic-
tions were fulfilled. For example : read Psalm 69 :
21, " They gave me gall to eat, and vinegar to drink;"
and compare Matt. 27 : 34, " They gave Mm vine-
gar to drink, mingled with galiy Again, it is said,
Psalm 22 : 16-18, " They pierced my hands and my
feet. They part my garments among them, and cast
lots upon my vesture ;"* as if it had been written after

* The soldiers did not tear his coat, because it was triihout
seam, woven from the top throughout ; and therefore they cast
lots for it. But this Avas to human view entirely accidental.
With the passage in the Psalms, as Romans, they were not
likely to be acquainted. The same remark applies to the next
instance, from Zechariah.

And here it may be suggested, (in reply to those who insi-
diously magnify " the power of chance, the ingenuity of ac-
commodation, and the industry of research," as chiefly sup-
porting the credit of obscure prophecy,) that greater plainness
would have enabled wicked men, as free agents, to prevent its
accomplishment, when obviously directed against themselves.
The Jews, not understanding what Christ meant by his " lift-
ing up," (John, 8 : 28 ; 12 : 32, 33,) and not knowing that he had
foretold his crucifixion to his apostles, (.Matt. 20 : 19.) instead
of finally stoning him— the death appointed by their law (J.evit.
21 : 16) for blasphemy, (Matt. 26 : 65,) mere than once me-

V)5] WITH THE DEISTS. 23

John, 19 : 23, 24. It is predicted, likewise, Zech. 12 :
10, " They shall look upon me Avhom they have
pierced ;" and we are told, John, 19 : 34, that " one
of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side."

Compare also Psalm 22 : 7, 8, " All they that see
me laugh me to scorn : they shoot out their lips and
shake their heads, saying. He trusted in God that he
would deliver him ; let him deliver him if he will have
him," with Matt. 27 : 39, 41, 43, ^^ Arid they that
passed by reviled him, vmgging their heads, and
saying, Come down from the cross. Likewise also
the chief priests, mocking him, with the scribes and,
elders, said. He trusted in God : let him deliver him
now, if he will have him,; for he said, I am the Son
of God.'''' His very price, and the mode of laying out
tlie money, previously specified, (Zech. 11 : 13,) are
historically stated by Matthew, in perfect correspon-
dence with the prophet ; chap. 27 : 6, 7. And his rid-
ing into Jerusalem upon an ass, predicted, Zech. 9 : 9,
(and referred by one of the most learned of the Jewish
Rabbies to the Messiah,) is recorded by the same in-
spired historian, chap. 21 : 5. Lastly, it was foretold,
that " he should make his grave with the wicked, and

naced against the Savior, (John, 8 : 59; 10 : 33,) and actually
inflicted upon Stephen (Acts, 7 : 58,) for that offence— uncon-
scious!}' delivered him to the predicted Roman cross. Again ;
the piercing of his side was no part of the Roman sentence, but
merely to ascertain his being dead previously to taking him
lown from the cross ; " that the body might not remain there
■)« the Sabbath day," which commenced that evening a few
fjours after the crucifixion. From his early giving up the ghost,
f\owever, it was not necessary that " a bone of him should be
"«»roken," (Exod. 12 : 46; Numb. 9 : 12; Psalm 34 : 20,) like
those of the tv/o thieves, his fellow-sufferers. John, 19 : 32-36.

24 Leslie's method [96

with the rich in his death;" (Isa. 53 : 9;) or, as Dr.
Lowth translates the passage, " his grave was ap-
pointed with the wicked, but with the rich man was
his tomb ;" which prediction was precisely verified by
the very improbable incidents of his being crucified
between two thieves, (Matt. 27 : 38,) and afterwards
laid in the tomb of the rich man of Arimathea. lb.
57, 60.

Thus do the prophecies of the Old Testament, with-
out variation or ambiguity, refer to the person and cha-
racter of Christ. His own predictions in the New, de-
mand a few brief observations.

Those relating to the destruction of Jerusalem,
which specified that it should be " laid even with the
ground," and '• not one stone be left upon another,"
(Luke, 9 : 44,) " before that generation passed," (Matt.
24 : 34,) were fulfilled in a most surprisingly literal
manner, the very foundations of the temple being
ploughed up by Turnus Rufus. In another remarkable
prophecy he announced the many false Messiahs that
should come after him, and the ruin in which their
folloAvers should be involved. Matt. 24 : 24-26. That
great numbers actually assumed that holy character
before the final fall of the city, and led the people into
the wilderness to their destruction, we learn from
Josephus. Antiq. Jud. 18 : 12 ; 20 : 6 ; and B. J. 8 :
31. Nay, such was their wretched infatuation, that
under this delusion they rejected the oflfers of Titus,
who courted them to peace. Id. B. J. 7 : 12.

It Avill be sufficient barely to mention his foretelling
the dispersion of that unhappy nation, and the triumph
of his Gospel over the gates of helL under every pos-
sible disadvantage — himself low and despised, his im-

97] WITH THE DEISTS. 25

mediate associates only twelve, and those illiterate and
unpolished ; and his adversaries the allied powers, pre-
judices, habits, interests, and appetites of mankind.

But the seventh mark is still more peculiar, if pos-
sible, to Christ, than even that of Prophecy. For
whatever may be weakly pretended with regard to the
oracular predictions of Delphi or Dodona^ the hea-
thens never affected to prefigure any future event by
types, or resemblances of the fact, consisting of ana-
logies either in individuals, or in sensible institutions
directed to be continued, till the antitype itself .should
make its appearance.

These tvpes, in the instance of Christ, were of a
tviro-fold nature, circumstantial and personal.

Of the former kind (not to notice the general rite of
sacrifice) may be produced as examples :

1. The Passover, appointed in memory of that great
night when the Destroying Angel, who slew all " the
first-born of Egypt,^^ passed over those houses upon
whose door-posts the blood of the Paschal Lamb was
sprinkled ; and directed to be eaten with what the
Apostle (1 Cor. 5 : 7, 8) calls " the unleavened bread
of sincerity and truth."

2. The annual expiation, in two respects; first, as
the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies (re-
presenting heaven, Exod. 25 : 40 ; Heb. 9 : 24) with
the blood of the sacrifice, whose body was burnt with-
out the camp, " wherefore Jesus also, that he might
sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered with-
out the gate 5" (Heb. 13 : 12;) and '^' after he had of-
fered one sacrifice for sin, for ever sat down at the right
hand of God ;" (10 : 12 ;) and secondly, as "all the

Q Infidelity.

20 LZhL.it. 3 METHOD [93

iniquity of the children of Israel was put upon the
head" of the Scape Goat. Lev. 16 : 21.

3. The brazen serpent, by looking up to which the
people were cured of the stings of the fiery serpents ;
and whose "lifting up" was, by Christ himsolf, "n-
terpreted as emblematical of his being lifted up on l.ie
cross. John 3 : 14.

4. The manna, which represented "the bread cf
life that came down from heaven." John, 6 : 31 — 35.

5. The rock, whence the waters flowed, to supply
drink in the wilderness ; " and that rock was Christ "
I Cor. 10 : 4.

6. The Sabbath, "a shadow of Christ ," (Col 2 •
16, 17 ;) and, as a figure of his eternal rest, denomi-
nated "a sign of the perpetual covenant." Exod. 31.
16, 17. Ezek. 20 : 12, 20. And, lastly, to omit others,

The temple, where alone the shadowy sacrifices
were to bo offered, because Christ, " the body," was
to be offered there himself.

Of personal types, likewise, I shall confine myself
to such as are so considered in the New Testament.

1. Adam., between whom and Christ a striking se-
lies of relations is remarked. Rom. 5: 12 — 21, and
1 Cor. 15 : 45 — 49

2. Noah, who was " saved by water ; the like figure
whereunto, even baptism, doth now save us, by the re-
surrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter, 3 : 20, 21.

3. Melchisedcc, king of Salem, who was made "like
unto the Son of God, a priest continually." Heb.
7 • 3

4. Abraham, " the heir of the world," (Rom. 4 : 13.)
" in whom all the Tidtions of the earth are blest."
Gen. 18 : 18.

99] WITH THE DEISTS. 27

5. Isaac, in his birth and intended sacrifice, whence
also his father received him in a figure, (Heb. 11 : 19,)
that is, of the resurrection of Christ. He too was the
promised seed (Gen. 21 : 12, and Gal. 3 : 16) in whom
all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. Gen.
22 : 18.

6. Jacob, in his vision of the ladder, (Gen. 28 : 12,
and John, 1 : 51,) and his wrestling with the angel ;
whence he, and after him the church, obtained the
name of Israel. Gen. 32 : 28, and Matt. 11 : 21. The
Gentile world also, like Jacob, gained the blessing and
heirship from their elder brethren, the Jews.

7. Moses, (Deut. 18 : 18, and John, 1 : 45,) in re-
deeming the children of Israel out of Egypt.

8. Joshua, called also Jesus, (Heb. 4 : 8,) in acquir-
ing for them the possession of the Holy Land, and as
Lieutenant to the " Captain of the host of the Lord."
Josh. 5 : 14.

9. David, (Psalm 16 : 10, and Acts, 2 : 25—35,)
upon whose throne Christ is said to sit, (Isai. 9 : 7,)
and by whose name he is frequently designated (Hos.
3 : 5, &c.) in his pastoral, regal, and prophetical
capacity.

10. Jonah, in his dark imprisonment of three days,
applied by Christ to himself. Matt. 12 : 40.

The eighth mark is, that the facts of Christianity
are such as to make it impossible for either the relaters
or the hearers to believe them, if false, without sup-
nosing a universal deception of the senses of man-
kind.

For they were related by the doers, or by eye-
witnesses, to those who themselves likewise either
were, or might have been present, and undoubtedlv

28 Leslie's method [100

knew many that were present at their performance.
To this circmnstance, indeed, both Christ and his
apostles often appeal. And they were of such a
nature as wholly to exclude every chance of im-
position. What juggler could have given sight to
him '• that was born blind," have fed five thousand
hungry guests with " five loaves and two fishes ;" or
have raised one, who had been '• four days buried,"
from his grave.

When, then, we add to this, that none of the Jewish
or Roman persecutors of Christianity, to whom its
first teachers frequently referred as witnesses of those
facts, ever ventured to deny them; that no apostate
disciple, under the fear of punishment, or the hope
of reward, not even the artful and accomplished Ju-
lian himself, ever pretended to detect them : that
neither learning nor ingenuity, in the long lapse of so
many years, has been able to show their falsehood :
though, for the first three centuries after their promul-
gation, the civil government strongly stimulated hos-
tile inquiry: and that their original relaters, after
lives of unintermitted hardship, joyfully incurred
death in defence of their truth — We cannot imagine
the possibility of a more perfect or abundant de-
monstration.

It now rests with the Deists, if they would vindi-
cate their claim to the self-bestowed title of "7??en of
reason,^'* to adduce some matters of fact of former
ages, which they allow to be true, possessing evi-
dence superior, or even similar, to those of Christ.
This, however, it must at the same time be observed,
would be far from proving the matters of fact respect-
ing Christ to be false ; but certainly without this, they

101] WITH THE LEISTS. 29

cannot reasonably dissert that their own facts alone;
so much less pov/erfully attested, are true.
Let them produce their Caesar, or Mahomed,

1. Perlorming a fact, of which men's outward
senses can judge;

2. Publiclt/, in the presence of witnesses;

3. In memory of which public monuments and ac-
tions are kept up ;

4. Instituted and commencing at the time of the
fact ;

5. Recorded likewise in a set of books, addressed
to the identical people before whom it was performed,
and containing their whole code of civil and ecclesi-
astical laws ;

6. As the work of one previously announced for
that very period by a long train of prophecies;

7. And still more peculiarly prefigured by types,
both of a circumstantial and personal nature, from
the earliest ages; and,

8. Of such a character as made it impossible for
either the relaters or hearers to believe it, if false,
without supposing a universal deception of the
senses of mankind.

Farther; let them display, in its professed eye-wit-
nesses, similar proofs of veracity • in some doctrines
founded upon it, and unaided by force or intrigue,
a like triumph over the prejudices and passions of
mankind ; among its believers, equal skill and equal
diligence in scrutinizing its evidences, or let them

SUBMIT TO THE IRRESISTIBLE CERTAINTY OF THE CHRIS-
TIAN RELIGION.

And now, reader, solemnly consider what that
religion w, the truth of which is proved by so many
9*

30 Leslie's method with the deists. [102

decisive marks. It is a declared revelation, from
God ; pronounces all men guilty in his sight ; pro-
claims pardon, as his free gift through the meritorious
righteousness, sacrifice, and intercession of his only
Son, to all who trust alone in his mercy and grace
cordially repentmg and forsaking their sins ; requires
fervent love, ardent zeal, and cordial submission to-
Avard himself, and the highest degree of personal
purity and temperance, with rectitude and benevo-
lence toward others ; and offers the aid of the Holy
Spirit for these purposes, to all who sincerely ask it.
Consider, this religion is the only true one, and
while it promises peace on earth and eternal happi-
ness to all who do receive and obey it, it denounces
everlasting destruction against all who do not. It is
in vain for you to admit its truth, unless you receive
it as your confidence, and obey it as your rule. Stu-
dy, then, embrace it for yourself: and may the God
of love and peace be with you.

THE ENP.

LORD LYTTELTON

ON

OP

ST. PA.UIi.

IN A LETTER

TO GILBERT WEST, Esq.

*• It is stated by Rev. T. T. Biddolph, that Lord Lyttehon
and his friend, Gilbert West, Esq. both men of acknowledg-
ed talents, had imbibed the principles of Infidelity from a su-
perficial view of the Scriptures. Fwlly pcrr^uaded that the
Bible was an imposture, they were determined to expose the
cheat. Lord Lytlelton chose tht 'Conversion of Paul, and
Mr. West the Resurrection of Christ for the subject cf hos-
tile criticism. Both sat down to their respective tasks full of
prejudice; but the result of their separate attempts was,
that they were both converted by their efforts to oyerthrow
the truth of Christianity. They came together, not a^ they
expected, to exult over an imposture exposed to ridicule,
but to lament over their own folly, and to felicitate each
other on their joint conviction that the Bible was the word
of God. Their able inquiries have furnished two of the
most valuable treatises in favor of revelation, one entitled
• Observations on the Conversion of St. Paul,' and the other
' Observations on the Resurrection of Christ.' "

«<s>srT2sm^2s<s>2Sf ^^ ^^a j&^ws,.

Sir, — In a late conversation we had upon the sub-
ject of the Christian religion, I told you, that besides
all the proofs of it which may be drawn from the pro-
phecies of the Old Testament, from the necessary
connection it has with the whole system of the Jew-
ish religion, from the miracles of Christ, and from the
evidence given of his resurrection by all the other
apostles, I thought the conversion and the apostleship
of St. Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a de-
monstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a Di-
vine revelation.

As you seemed to think that so compendious a proof
might be of use to convince those unbelievers that
will not attend to a longer series of arguments, I have
thrown together the reasons upon which I support that
proposition.

In the 26th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, written
by a cotemporary author, and a companion of St. Paul
in preaching the Gospel, (as appears by the bookiiself,
chap. 20 : 6, 13, 14. chap. 27 : 1, &c.) St. Paul is said
to have given, himself, this account of his conversion
and preaching, to king Agrippa and Festus the Ro-
man governor. " My manner of life from my youth,
whicn was, at the first, among mine own nation at
Jerusalem, know all the Jews, which knew me from

4 L"8 TTELTON ON j 106

the beginning, (if they would testify,) that ai*ter the
straitesi beet of our religion, I lived a Pharisee. And
now I stard and am judged for the hope of the pro-
mise made by God unto our fathers: unto which pro-
mise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and
night, hope to come ; for which nope's sake, tinsr
Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. Why should it
ne thought a thing incredible with you, that God
should raise the dead '? I verily thought with myself,
that I ought to do many thing's contrary to the name
of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing 1 also did in Je-
rusalem, and many of the saints did I shut up in pri-
son, having received authority from the chief priests ;
and when they were put to death, I gave my voice
against them. And I punished them oft in every
synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme ; and
being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted
them even unto strange cities. Whereupon, as I went
to Dama&cub with authority and commission from the
chief priests, at mid-day, O king, I saw in the way a
light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun
shining round about me, and them which journeyed
with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth.
[ heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the
Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why perseculest thou
me ? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks
And I said, who art thou, Lord? And be said, I am
Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, stand upon
thy feet ; for I have appeared unto thee for this pur-
pose, to make thee a minister, and a witness both oi
those things which thou hast seen, and of those things
in the which I will appear unto thee ; delivering thee
I'rom the people and from the Gentiles unto whom I

107] CONVERSION OP PAUL. 5

now send tnee, to open their eyes, and to tun them
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan
unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins
and mheritance among them which are sanctified by
faith that is in me. Whereupon, O king Agrippa, 1
was not disobedient to the heavenly vision : but show-
ed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and
throughout all the coasts of Judea, and to the Gentiles,
that they should repent and turn to God, and do works
meet for repentance. For these causes the Je'^s
caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue
unto this day, witnessing both *o small and great, say-
ing none other things than those which Moses and the
prophets did say should come : That Christ should hui-
fer, and that he should be the first that should rise from
the dead, and should show light to the people, and to
the Geniiles. And as he thus spake for himself. Fes"
tus said with a loud voice, Paul thou art beside thy-
self: much learning doth make thee mad. But he
said, I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth
the words of truth and soberness. For the king know-
eth of these things, before whom also 1 speak freely ;
for I am persuaded that none of these things are hid-
den from him ; for this thing was not done in a cor-
ner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I
know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto
Paul, almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but
also all that hear me this day, were both almost and
altogether such as I am, except these bonds." In ano-
ther chapter of the same book, he gives in substance
the same account to the X. ws, adding these further

6 LYTTELTON ON [108

particulars : " And I said, what shall I do, Lord ? And
the Lord said unio me, arise and go into Damascus,
and there it shall be told thee of all things which are
appointed for thee to do. And when I could net see
for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of
them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And
one Ananias, a devout man, according to the law, hav-
ing a good report of all the Jews that dwelt there,
came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, brother
Saul, receive thy sight : and the same hour I looked
upon him. And he said, the God of our fathers hath
chosen thee, that thou shouldst know his will, and
see that just One, and shouldst hear the voice of his
mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men,
of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why
tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts, 22 :
10—16.

In the 9th chapter of the same book, the author of it
relates the same story with some other circumstances
not mentioned in these accounts ; as, that Saul in a
vision saw Ananias before he came to him, coming in,
and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his
sight. And that when Ananias had spoken to him,
immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been
scales. Acts, 9 : 12, IS.

And agreeably to all these accounts. St. Paul thus
speaks of himself in the epistles he wrote to the seve-
ral churches he planted ; the authenticity of which
cannot be doubted without overturning all rules by
which the authority and genuineness of any writings
can be proved or confirmed.

To the Galatians he says. ''I certify you, brethren,

109] CONVERSION OF PAUL. 7

that the Gospel which was preached by me is not af*
ter man. For I neither received it of man, neither was
I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For
ye have heard of my conversation m time past in the
Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted
the church of God, and wasted it ; and profited in the
Jews' religion above many of mine equals in my own
nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the tradi-
tion of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who
separated me from my mother's womb, and called me
by his grace to reveal his Son in me, that I might
preach him among the heathen, immediately I confer-
cd not with flesh and blood," &c. Gal. 1 : 11—16.

To the Philippians he says, " If any other man
thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the
flesh, I more : circumcised the eighth day, of the stock
of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the
Hebrews. As touching the law, a Pharisee ; concern-
ing zeal, persecuting the church ; touching the righ-
teousness which is in the law, blameless. But what
things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the
excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord
for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do
count them but dung, that I may win Christ." Phil
3 : 4—8.

And in his epistle to Timothy he writes thus: "I
thank Jesus Christ our Lord, who hath enabled me,
for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the
ministry, who was before a blasphemer, and a perse-
cutor, and injurious ; but I obtained mercy, because I
did it ignorantly in unbelief." 1 Tim. I : 12, 13.

In other epistles he calls himself '• an aposihi by

10 Infidelitj.

fi LYTTELTON ON (110

ine will of God, by the coinmandment of God our Sa-
vior, and Lord Jesus Christ ; and an apostle, not of
men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God
the Father, who raised him from the dead?^ 2 Cor.
1:1; Col. 1 : 1 ; 1 Tim. 1:1; Gal. 1 : ;i. All which
implies some miraculous call that made him an apos-
tle. And to the Corinthians he says, after enumerat-
ing many appearances of Jesus after his resurrection,
" and last of all he was seen of me also, as of one
born out of due time." 1 Cor. 15 : 8.

Now, it must of necessity be, that the person attest-
ing these things of himself, and of whom they are
related in so authentic a manner, either was an impos-
tor, who said what he knew to be false, with an in-
tent to deceive ; or he was an enthusiast, who, by the
force of an over-heated imagination, imposed on hhn-
self ; or he was deceived by the fraud of others, and
all that he said must be imputed to the power of that
deceit ; or what he declared to have been the cause of
his conversion, and to have happened in consequence
of it, did all really happen ; and, therefore, the Chris-
tian religion is a divine revelation.

I. Paul not an Impostor*

Now, that he was not an impostor, who said what
he knew to be false, with an intent to deceive, I shall
en 3eavor to prove, by showing that he could have no
rational motives to undertake such an imposture, nor
could have possibly carried it on with any success by
the means we know he employed.

irirst, then, the inducement to such an imposture
must have been one of these two : either the hope of

Ill] CONVERSION OP PAVL. 9

advancing himself hy it m his temporal interest, cre-
dit, or power; or the gratijication of some of his pas-
sions under the authority of it, and by the means it
afforded.

Now, these were the circumstances in which St.
Paul declared his conversion to the faith of Christ
Jesus : that Jesus who called himself the Messiah,
and Son of God — notwithstanding the innocence and
holiness of his life ; notwithstanding the miracles by
which he attested his mission — had been crucified by
the Jews as an impostor and blasphemer, which cruci-
fixion not only must, humanly speaking, have intimi-
dated others from following him, or espousing his doc-
trines, but served to confirm the Jews in their opinion
that he could not be their promised Messiah, who, ac-
cording to all their prejudices, was not to suffer in any
manner, but to reign triumphant for ever here upon
earth. His apostles, indeed, though at first they ap-
peared to be terrified by the death of their Master, and
disappointed in all their hopes, yet had surprisingly
recovered their spirits again, and publicly taught in his
name, declaring him to be risen from the grave, and
confirming that miracle by many they worked, or pre-
tended to work, themselves. But the chief priests and
rulers among the Jews were so far from being con-
verted, either by their words or their works, that they
had began a severe persecution against them, put some
to death, imprisoned others, and were going on with
implacable rage against the whole sect. In all these
severities St. Paul concurred, being himself a Phari-
see, hred up at the feet of Gamaliel, Acts, 7 : 9, 22,
23, one of the chief of that sect. Nor was he content,
in the heat of his zeal, with persecuting the Christiana

10 LYTTELTON ON [U2

who were at Jerusalem, but breathing out threaten-
ing and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,
went unto the high priest and desired of him letters
to Damascus to the synagogues^ that if he found any
of this way, whether they were men or women, he
tnight bring them bound to Jerusalem. Acts, 9 : 1, 2,
His request was complied with, and he went to Da-
mascus with authority and commission from the high
priest. Acts, 26 : 12. At this instant of time, and
under these circumstances, did he become a disciple
of Christ. What could be his motive to take such a
part ? Was it the hope of increasing his wealth ? The
certain consequence of his taking that part was not
only the loss of all that he had, but of all hopes of ac-
quiring more. Those whom he left were the disposers
of wealth, of dignity, of power, in Judea ; those whom
he went to, were indigent men, oppressed and kept
down from all means of improving their fortunes.
They, among them, who had more than the rest, shar-
ed what they had with their brethren ; but with this
assistance the whole community was hardly supplied
with the necessaries of life. And even in churches
he afterwards planted himself, which were much more
wealthy than that of Jerusalem, so far was St. Paul
from availing himself of their charity, or the venera-
tion they had for him, in order to draw that wealth to
himself, that he often refused to take any part of it
for the necessaries of life.

Thus he tells the Corinthians : " Even unto this
present hour we bcth hunger and thirst ; and are naked,
and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelhng-place,
and labor, working with our own hands." 1 Cor. 15 : 8.

In another epistle he writes to them, " Behold tlie

,13] CONVERSION OF PALL. 11

third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not
be burthensome to you, for I seek not yours, but you;
for the children ought not to lay up for the parents,
but the parents for the children." 2 Cor. 12 : 14.

To the Thessalonians he says, " As we were al-
lowed of God to be put in trust with the Gospel, e^en
so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God, which
trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we
flattering words, nor a cloak of covetousness ; God is
witness; nor of men sought we glory, neither of you,
nor yet of others, when we might have been burden-
some, as the apostles of Christ. For ye remember,
brethren, our labor and travail : for laboring night and
day, because we would not be chargeable to any of
you,- we preached unto you the Gospel of God."
And again in another letter to them he repeats the
same testimony of his disinterestedness: "Neither
did we eat any man's bread for naught, bat wrought
with labor and travail day and night, that we might
not be chargeable to any of you." 2 Thess. 3: 8. And
when he took his farewell of the church of Ephesus,
to whom he foretold that they should see him no
more, he gives this testimony of himself, and appeals
to them for the truth of it : "I have coveted no man's
silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, you yourselves know,
that these hands have ministered unto my necessities,
and to them that were with me," Acts, 20 : 33, 34.
It i3 then evident, both from the state of the church,
when St. Paul first came into it, and from his be-
havior afterwards, that he had no thoughts of increas'-
ing his wealth by becoming a Christian ; whereas, by
continuing to be their enemy, he had almost certain
hopes of making his fortune by the favor of those who
10*

12 LYTTELTON ON [114

were at the head of the Jewish state, to whom nothing
could more recommend him than the zeal thai he
showed in that persecution. As to credit or repu-
tation, that too lay all on the side he forsook. The
sect he embraced was under the greatest and most
universal contempt of any then in the world. The
chiefs and leaders of it were men of the lowest birth,
education, and rank. They had no one advantage ot
parts, ox learning, or other human endowments to re-
commend them. The doctrines they taught were
contrary to those which they who were accounted
the wisest and most knowing of their nation profess-
ed. The wonderful works that they did were either
imputed to magic or to imposture. The very author
and head of their faith had been condemned as a
criminal, and died on the cross between two thieves.
Could the disciple of Gamaliel think he should gain
any credit or reputation by becoming a teacher in a
college of fishermen ? Could he flatter himself tha*
either in or out of Judea the doctrines he taught coul(<
do him any honor? No; he knew very well that the
preaching Christ crucified was a stumbling-block to
the JeiDS, and to the Greeks foolishness. 1 Cor. 1 : 23.
He afterwards found by experience, that in all parts
of the world, contempt was the portion of whoever
engaged in preaching a mystery so unpalatable to the
world to all its passions and pleasures, and so irre-
concilable to the pride of human reason. We are
made (says he to the Corinthians) as the filth of tht
world, the off-scouring of all things unto this day,
1 Cor. 4: 13. Yet he went on as zealously as he set
out, and was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.
Certainly then, the desire of glory, the ambition of

J

I15j CONVERSION OF PAUL. 13

making to himself a great name, was not his motive
to embrace Christianity. Was it then the love of
power? Power! over whom? over a flock of sheep
driven to the slaughter, whose shepherd himself had
been murdered a little before ! All he could hope from
that power was to be marked out in a particular man-
ner for the same knife which he had seen so bloodily-
drawn against them. Could he expect more mercy
from the chief priests and the rulers than they had
shown to Jesus himself? Would not their anger be
probably fiercer against the deserter and betrayer of
their cause, than against any other of the apostles ?
Was power over so mean and despised a set of men
worth encountering so much danger? But still it may
be said, there are some natures so fond of power that
they will court it at any risk, and be pleased with it
even over the meanest. Let us see then what power
St. Paul assumed over the Christians. Did he pre-
tend to any superiority over the other apostles? No;
he declared himself the least of them, and less than
the least of all saints. Ephes. 3 : 8, 1 Cor. 15 : 9.
Even in the churches he planted himself, he never
pretended to any primacy or power above the other
apostles ; nor would he be regarded any otherwise by
them, than as the instrument to them of the grace of
God, and preacher of the Gospel, not as the head of
a sect. To the Corinthians he writes in these words :
— " Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of
Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or
were ye baptized in the name of Paul ?" 1 Cor. 1 : 12, 17.
And in another place, "Who then is Paul, and who is
Apollos, but rn misters by whom ye oelieved, even as

!4 LYTTELTON ON [116

the Lord gave to every man ?" 1 Cor. 3:5. " For we
preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and
ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." 2 Cor. 4: 5.
All the authority he exercised over them was pure-
ly of a spiritual nature, tendius^ to their instruction
and edification, without any mixture of that civil do-
minion in which alone an impostor can find his ac-
count. Such was the dominion acquired and exercised
through the pretence of Divine inspiration, by many
ancient legislators, by Minos, Rhadamanthus, Tripto-
iemus, Lycurgus, Numa, Zaleucus, Zoroaster, Xam-
olxis; nay, even by Pythagoras, who joined legislation
to his philosophy, and, like the others, pretended to
miracles and revelations from God, to give a more
venerable sanction to the laws he prescribed. Such,
in latter times, was attained by Odin among the
Goths, by Mohammed among the Arabians, by Man-
go Copac among the Peruvians, by the Sofi family
among the Persians, and that of the XerifTs among
the Moors. To such a dominion did also aspire the
many false Messiahs among the Jews. In short, a
spiritual authority was only desired as a foundation
for temporal power, or as the support of it, by all
these pretenders to Divine inspiration, and others
whom history mentions in different ages and coun-
tries to have used the same arts. But St. Paul in-
novated nothing in government or civil alTairs ; he
meddled not with legislation : he formed no common-
wealths ; he raised no seditions ; he affected no tem-
poral power. Obedience to their rulers (Romans, 13)
was the doctrine he taught to the churches he planted;
and what he taught he practiced himself: nor did he
use any of those soothing^ arts by which ambitious

117] CONVERSION OF PAUL. 15

and cunning men recommend themselves to the favor
of those whom they endeavor to subject to their pow-
er. Whatever was wrong in the disciples under his
care he freely reproved, as it became a teacher from
God, of which numberless instances are to be found
in all his epistles. And he was as careful of them
when he had left them, as while he resided among
them, which an impostor would hardly have been,
whose ends were centered all in himself. This is
the manner in which he writes to the Philippians :
" Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed,
not in my presence only, but now much more in my
absence, work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling." Phil. 2 : 12. And a little after he adds the
cause why he interested himself so much in their con-
duct, " That ye may be blameless and harmless, the
sons of God in the midst of a crooked and perverse
nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world,
holding forth the word of life ; that I may rejoice in
the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither
labored in vain. Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacri-
fice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice with
you all." Phil. 2 : 15-17. Are those the words of an
impostor, desiring nothing but temporal power ? No ;
they are evidently written by one who looked beyond
the bounds of this life. But it may be said that he
affected at least an absolute spiritual power over the
churches he formed. I answer, he preached Christ
Jesus, and not himself. Christ was the head, he only
the minister ; and for such only he gave himself to
them. He called those who assisted him in preach-
ing the Gospel, his fellow laborers and fellow^
sercants.

16 LYTTELTON 0» [1J8

So far was he from taking any advantage of a high-
er education, superior learning, and more use of the
world, to claim to himself any supremacy above the
other apostles, that he made light of all these attain-
ments, and declared that he came not with excellen-
cy of speech, or of wisdom, hut determined to know
nothing among those he converted save Jesus Christ
and him crucified. And the reason he gave for it
was, that their faith should not stand in the wisdom
of men, hut in the power of God. 1 Cor. 2 : 1, 2-5. Now
this conduct put him quite on a level with the other apos-
tles, who knew Jesus Christ as well as he, and had the
power of God going along with their preaching in an
equal degree of virtue and grace. But an impostorj
whose aim had been power, would have acted a con-
trary part ; he would have availed himself of all those
advantages, he would have extolled them as highly as
possible, he would have set up himself by virtue ot
them as head of that sect to which he acceded, or at
least of the proselytes made by himself. This is no
more than what was done bv every philosopher who
formed a school ; much more was it natural in one
who propagated a new religion.

We see that the Bishops of Rome have claimed to
themselves a primacy, or rather a monarchy over the
whole Christian church. If St. Paul had been actu-
ated by the same lust of dominion, it was much easier
for him to have succeeded in such an attempt. It was
much easier to make himself head of a few poor me-
chanics and fishermen, whose superior he had always
been in the eyes of the world, than for the bishops of
Rome to reduce those of Ravenna or Milan, and othe?
great metropolitans, to their obedience. Besides the op-

119] CONVERSION OF I'AUL. 17

posision ihey met with from such potent antagonists,
tjiey were obliged to support their pretensions indirect
vn3ntradiction to those very Scriptures which they were
torced to ground them upon, and to the indisputable
j/ractics of the whole Christian church for many cen-
turies. These were such difficulties as required the
utmost abilities and skill to surmount. But the first
preachers of the Gospel had easier means to corrupt
tt faith not yet fully known, and which in many places
coiild only be known by what they severally published
themselves. It was necessary, indeed, while they con-
tinued together, and taught the same people, that they
should agree, otherwise the credit of their sect would
tjiave been overthrown ; but when they separated, and
formed different churches in distant countries, the
game necessity no longer remained.

It was in the power of St. Paul to model most of the
churches he formed, so as to favor his own ambition j
for he preached the Gospel in parts of the world where
no other apostles had been, where Christ was not
named till he brought the knowledge of him, avoiding
to build upon another man' s foundation. Rom. 15 : 20.
Now had he been an impostor, would he have confined
himself to just the same Gospel as was delivered by the
other apostles, where he had such a latitude to preach
what he pleased without contradiction ? Would he
loot have twisted and warped the doctrines of Christ
to his own ends, to the particular use and expediency
of his own followers, and to the peculiar support and
increase of his own power? That this was not done
by St. Paul, or by any other of the apostles in so many
various parts of the world as they traveled into, and
in churches absolutely under their own direction ; thar

IB LYTTELTON OJt [120

the Gospel preached by them all should be one and
the same, die doctrines agreeing in every particular,
without any one of them attributing more to himself
than he did to the others, or establishing anything
even in point of order or discipline different from the
rest, or more advantageous to his own interest, credit
or power, is a most strong and convincing proof ot
their not being impostors, but acting entirely by Di-
vine inspiration.

If any one imagines that he sees any difference be-
tween the doctrines of St. James and St. Paul con-
cerning justification by faith or by works, let him read
Mr. Locke's excellent comment upon the epistles of
the latter ; or let him only consider these words in the
first epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 9 : 27. But I
keep under my body, and bring it into subjection^
lest that by any means, when I have preached to
others, I myself should be a cast away.

If St. Paul had believed or taught that faith with-
out works was sufficient to save a disciple of Chris c,
to what purpose did he keep under his body, since his
salvation was not to depend upon that being subject-
ed to the power of his reason, but merely upon the
faith he professed ? His faith was firm, and so strong-
ly founded upon the most certain conviction, that he
had no reason to doubt its continuance; how could he
then think it possible, that while he retained that sav-
ing faith, he might nevertheless be a cast away? Or
if he had supposed that his election and calling was
of such a nature, as that it irresistibly impelled him
to good, and restrained him from evil, how could he
express any fear, lest the lusts of his body should pre-
rent his salvation? Can such an apprehension be

121 J CONVERSION OP PAUL. 19

made to agree with the notions of absolute predestina-
tion, ascribed by some to St. Paul? He could have no
doubt that the grace of God had been given to him ii?.
the most extraordinary manner; yet we see that he
thought his election was not so certain but that he
might fall from it again through the natural prevalence
of bodily appetites, if not duly restrained by his own
voluntary care. This single passage is a full answer,
out of the mouth of St. Paul himself, to all the mis-
takes that have been made of his meaning in some
obscure expressions cohcerning grace, election, and
justification.

If, then, it appears that St. Paul had nothing to gam
by taking this part, let us consider, on the other hand,

WHAT HE GAVE UP and WHAT HE HAD REASON TO FEAR.

He gave up a fortune, which he was then in a fair
way of advancing : he gave up that reputation which
he had acquired by the labors and studies of his whole
life, and by a behavior which had been blameless,
touching the righteousness which is in the law. Phil.
3 : 6. He gave up his friends, his relations, and family,
from whom he estranged and banished himself for life ,
he gave up that religion which he had 'profited in, above
many his equals in his own nation, and those tradi-
tions of his fathers, which he had been more exceed-
ingly zealous of Gal. 1:14. How hard this sacrifice
was to a man of his warm temper, and above all men,
to a Jew, is worth consideration. That nation is known
to have been more tenacious of their religious opinions
than any other upon the face of the earth. The strict-
est and proudest sect among them was that of the
Pharisees, under whose discipline St. Paul was bred.

11 Infidelity.

20 LYTTELTON ON [122

The departing, therefore, so suddenly from their favor-
ite tenets, renouncing their pride, and from their disciple
becoming their adversary, was a most difficult effort
for one to make so nursed up in the esteem of them,
and whose early prejudices were so strongly confirmed
by all the power of habit, all the authority of example,
and all the allurements of honor and interest. These
were the sacrifices he had to make in becoming a
Christian ; let us now see what inconveniences he had
to fear : the implacable vengeance of those he deserted ;
that sort of contempt which is hardest to bear, the
contempt of those wnose good opinion he had most
eagerly sought, and all those other complicated evils
which he describes in his second Epistle to the Corin-
thians, chap. 11. Evils, the least of which were enough
to hare frighted any impostor even from the most hope-
ful and profitable cheat. But where the advantage pro-
posed bears no proportion to the dangers incurred, or
the mischiefs endured, he must be absolutely out of
liis senses v/ho will either engage in an imposture, or,
being engaged, persevere.

Upon the whole, then, I think I have proved that
the desire of wealth, or fame, or of power, could be
no motive to make St. Paul a convert to Christ ; but
that, on the contrary, he must have been checked by
that desire, as well as by the just apprehension of ma-
ny inevitable and insupportable evils, from taking a
part so contradictory to his past life, to all the princi-
ples he had imbibed, and all the habits he had con-
tracted.

It only remains to be inquired, whether the grati-
fication OF ANY OTHER PASSION uudcr the authority of

123] CONVERSION OP PAUU 21

that religion, or by the means it afforded, could be his
inducement. That there have been some impostors,
"who have pretended to revelations from God, merely
to give loose to irregular passions, and set themselves
free from all restraints of government, law, or mora-
lity, both ancient and modern history shows. But tne
doctrine preached by St. Paul is absolutely contrary
to all such designs. His Avritings* breathe nothing
but the strictest morality, obedience to magistrates,
order, and government, with the utmost abhorrence of
all licentiousness, idleness, or loose behavior under
the cloak of religion. We no where read in his works,
that saints are above moral ordinances ; that dominion
or property is founded in grace ; that there is no dif-
ference in moral actions ; that any impulses of the
mind are to direct us against the light of our reason,
and the laws of nature ; or any of those wicked tenets,
from which the peace of society has been disturbed,
and the rules of morality have been broken by men
pretending to act under the sanction of a divine reve-
lation. Nor does any part of his life, either before or
after his conversion to Christianity, bear any mark of
a libertine disposition. As among the Jews, so among
the Christians, his conversion and manners were
blameless. Hear the appeal that he makes to the Thes-
salonians upon his doctrine and behavior among them :
" Our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of unclean-
ness, nor in guile : ye are witnesses, and God also,
how holily, and justly, and unblameably we behaved
ourselves among you that believe."! And to the Co-

* See particularly Rora. 11 and 13, and Col. 3.
t Thess. 2 : 10. If St. Paul had held any secret doctrines, or
esoteric, (as the philosophers called them,) we should have pro

22 LYTTELTON ON [121

rinthians he says, we have wronged no man, we have
con^upted no man, we have defrauded no man. 2
Cor. 7 : 2. See also ] • 12, and 4 : 2.

It was not, then, the desire of gratifying any irregu-
lar passion, that could induce St. Paul to turn Chris-
tian, any more than the hope of advancing himself
either in wealth, or reputation, or power. But still it
is possible, some men may say, (and I would leave no
imaginable objection unanswered,) that though St.
Paul could have no selfish or interested view in un-
dertaking such an imposture, yet, for the sake of its
moral doctrines, he might be inclined to support the
Christian faith, and make use of some pious frauds
to advance a religion which, though erroneous and
false in its theological tenets, and in the fact upon
which it is grounded, was, in its precepts and influ-
ence, beneficial to mankind.

Now, admit that some good men in the heathen
world have both pretended to divine revelations, and
introduced or supported religions they knew to be
false, under a notion of public utility. But besides that,
this practice was built upon maxims disclaimed by the

bably found them in the letters he wrote to Timothy, Titus,
and Philemon, his bosom friends and disciples. But both the
theological and moral doctrines are exactly the same in ihcm,
as those he wrote to the churches. A very strong presumptive
proof of his being no impostor! Surely, had he been one, he
would have given some hints in these private letters of the
cheat they were carrying on, and some secret directions to
turn it to some worldly purposes of one kind or another. But
no such thing is to be found in any one of them. The same dis-
interested, holy, and divine spirit breathes in all these, as in
the other more public epistles.

125] convehsion op paul. 23

Jews, (who, looking upon truth, not utility, to be the
basis of their religion, abhorred all such frauds, and
thought them injurious to the honor of God,) the cir-
cumstances they acted in were different from those ot
St. Paul.

The first reformers of savage, uncivilized nations,
had no other way to tame those barbarous people, and
to bring them to submit to order and government, but
by the reverence which they acquired from this pre-
tence. The fraud was therefore alike beneficial both
to the deceiver and the deceived. And in all other in-
stances which can be given of good men acting this
part, they not only did it to serve good ends, but were
secure of its doing no harm. Thus, when Lycurgus
persuaded the Spartans, or Numa the Romans, that
the laws of the one were inspired by Apollo, or those
of the other by Egeria; when they taught their people
to put great faith in oracles, or in augury, no temporal
mischief, either to them or their people, could attend
the reception of that belief. It drew on no persecu-
tions, no enmity Avith the world. But at that time,
when St. Paul undertook the preaching of the Gospel,
to persuade any man to be a Christian, was to per-
suade him to expose himself to all the calamities hu-
man nature could suffer. This St. Paul knew ; this he
not only expected, but warned those he taught to look
for it too. 1 Thess. 3 : 4 ; 2 Cor. 6 : 4, 5 ; Eph. 6 : 10-
16 ; Phil. 1 : 28-30. The only support that he had
himself, or gave to them, Avas, " That if they suffered
with Christ, they should be also glorified together.''''
And that " he reckoned that the sufferings of the pre
sent time were not Vv^orthy to be compared with that
glory."''' Rom. 8 : 17, 18. So likewise he v/rites to the
11*

34 LYTTELTON ON [126

Thessalonians : " We ourselves glory in you, in the
churches of God, for your patience and faith in all
your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure ;
which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment
of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the king-
dom of God, for which also ye suffer. Seemg it is a
righteous thing with God to recompense (or repay)
tribulation to them that trouble you ; and to you who
are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall
be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, ^c."
2 Thess. 1 : 4-7. And to the Corinthians he says, "If
in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all
men most miserable." How much reason he had to
say this, the hatred, the contempt, the torments, the
deaths endured by the Christians in that age, and long
afterwards, abundantly prove. Whoever professed the
Gospel under these circumstances, without an entire
conviction of its being a divine revelation, must have
been mad; and if he made others profess it by fraud
or deceit, he must have been worse than mad ; he must
have been the most hardened villain that ever breath-
ed. Could any man, who had in his nature the least
spark of humanity, subject his fellow-creatures to so
many miseries ; or could one that had in his mind the
least ray of reason, expose himself to share them M-ith
those he deceived, in order to advance a religion which
he knew to be false, merely for the sake of its moral
doctrmes ? Such an extravagance is too absurd to be
supposed ; and I dwell too long on a notion that, upon
a little reflection, confutes itself.

I would only add to the other proofs I have given,
that St. Paul could l^ave no rational motive to beccrae
a disciple of Christ unless he sincerely believed in

127] CONVERSION OF PAUL. 39

him, this observation : that whereas it may he object-
ed to the other apostles, by those who are resolved
not to credit their testimony, that having been deeply
engaged with Jesus during his life, they were obliged
to contmue the same professions after his death, foi
the support of their own credit, and from having gone
too far to go back : this can by no means be said of St.
Paul. On the contrary, whatever force there may be in
that way of reasoning, it all tends to convince us that
St. Paul must have naturally continued a Jew, and an
enemy of Christ Jesus. If they were engaged on one
side, he was as strongly engaged on the other ; if shame
withheld them from changing sides, much more ought
it to have stopped him, who being of a higher educa-
tion and rank in life a great deal than they, had more
credit to lose, and must be supposed to have been
vastly more sensible to that sort of shame. The only
difference was, that they, by quitting their master af-
ter his death, might have preserved themselves ; where-
as he, by quitting the Jews, and taking up the cross
of Christ, certainly brought on his own destruction.

As, therefore, no rational motive appears for St.
Paul's embracing the faith of Christ, without having
been really convinced of the truth of it ; but, on the con-
trary, every thing concurred to deter him from acting
that part ; one might very justly conclude, that when
a man of his understanding embraced that faith, he
was in reality convinced of the truth of it ; and that,
by consequence, he Avas not an impostor, who said
what he knew to be false with an intent to deceive.

But that no shadow of doubt may remain upon the
impossibility of his having 1>een such an impostor;

26 LYTTELTON ON [l28

that it may not be said, " The minds of men are some-
times so capricious that they will act without any
rational motives, they know not why, and so perhaps
might St. Paul:" I shall next endeavor to prove, that
if he had been so unaccountably wild and absurd as
to undertake an imposture so unprofitable and dange-
rous both to himself and those he deceived by it, he

COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE CARRIED IT ON WITH AN\

SUCCESS by the means that we know he employed.

First, then, let me observe, that if his conversion,
and the part that he acted in consequence of it, was an
imposture, it was such an imposture as could not he
carried on by one man alone. The faith he prafessed,
and which he became an apostle of, was not his in-
vention. He was not the author or beginner of it, and
therefore it was not in his power to draw the doctrines
of it out of his own imagination. With Jesus, who
was the Author and Head of it, he had never had any
communication before his death, nor with his apostles
after his death, except as their persecutor. As he took
on himself the office and character of an apostle, it
was absolutely necessary for him to have a precise
and perfect knowledge of all the facts contained in the
Gospel, several of Avhich had only passed between Je-
sus himself and his twelve apostles, and others n ore
privately still, so that they could be known but to very
few, being not yet made public by any writings ; other-
wise he would have exposed himself to ridicule among
those who preached that Gospel Avith more knowledge
than he ; and as the testimony they bore would have
been different in point of fact, and many of their doc-
trines and interpretations of Scripture repugnant to
his, from their entiie disagreement with those Jewish

129] CONVERSION OP PAUL. 27

opinions in which he was bred up ; either they must
have been forced to ruin his credit, or he would have
ruined theirs. Some general notices he might have
gained of these matters from the Christians he perse-
cuted, but not exact or extensive enough to qualify him
for an apostle, whom the least error, in these points,
would have disgraced, and who must have been ruin-
ed by it in all his pretentions to that inspiration from
whence the apostolical authority was chiefly derived.
It was, therefore, impossible for him to act this part
but in confederacy, at least, with the apostles. Such
a confederacy was still more necessary for him, as the
undertaking to preach the Gospel did not only require
an exact and particular knowledge of all it contained,
but an apparent power of working miracles ; for to
such a power all the apostles appealed in proof of their
mission, and of the doctrines they preached. He was,
therefore, to learn of them by what secret arts they so
imposed on the senses of men, if this power was a
cheat. But how could he gain these men to become
his confederates ? Was it by furiously persecuting
them and their brethren, as we find that he did, to the
very moment of his conversion ? Would they venture
to trust their capital enemy with all the secrets of their
imposture, with those upon which all their hopes and
credit depended? Would they put it in his power to
lake away not only their lives, but the honor of their
sect, which they preferred to their lives, by so ill-plac-
ed a confidence ? Would men, so secret as not to he
drawn by the most severe persecutions to say one wora
which could convict them of being impostors, confess
themselves such to their persecutor, in hopes of his
being their accomplice ? This is still more inipossi-

?8 LYTTELTON ON flSO

ble than that he should attempt to engage m their fraud
without their consent and assistance.

We must suppose then, that, till he came to Damas-
cus, he had no communication with the apostles, actej
in no concert with them, and learnt nothing fiom them
except the doctrines which they had publicly taught to
all the world. When he came there ne told the Jews,
to whom he brought letters from the high priest and
the synagogue against the Christians, of his having
seen in the way a great light from heaven, and heard
Jesus Christ reproaching him with his persecution, and
commanding him to go into the city, where it should be
told him what he was to do. But to account for his
choosing this method of declaring himself a convert
to Christ, we must suppose, that all those who were
with him, when he pretended he had this vision, were
his accomplices ; otherwise the story he told could have
gained no belief, being contradicted by them whose
testimony was necessary to vouch for the f;*h of it.
And yet how can we suppose that all these men shou ^
be willing to join in this imposture ? They were, pit
oably, officers of justice, or soldiers, who had been
employed often before in executing the orders of the
high priest and the rulers against the Christians. Or,
if they were chosen particularly for this expedition,
they must have been chosen by them as men they
could trust for their zeal in that cause. What should
induce them to the betraying of that business they
were employed in ? Does it even appear that they
had any connection with the man they so lied for, be-
fore or after this time, or any reward from him for it T
This is, therefore, a difficulty in the first outset of this
imposture not to be overcome.

131 I CONVERSION OF PACL. 29

But, farther : he was to be instructed by one at Da-
mascus. That instructor, therefore, must have been
his accomplice, though they appeared to be absolute
strangers to one another ; and though he was a man
of an excellent character, who had a good report of
all the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, and so was very
unlikely to have engaged in such an imposture. Not-
withstanding these improbabilities, this man, I say,
must have been his confidant and accomplice in carry-
ing on this fraud, and the whole matter must have
been previously agreed on between them. But, here
again the same objection occurs: how could this man
venture to act such a dangerous part, without the con-
sent of the other disciples, especially of the apostles,
or by what means could he obtain their consent ? And
how absurdly did they contrive their business, to make
the conversion of Saul the effect of a miracle, which
all those who were with him must certify did never
happen ! How much easier would it have been to
have made him be present at some pretended miracle
wrought by the disciples, or by Ananias himself, when
none were ab) discover the fraud, and have im-

puted his conversion to that, or to the arguments used
by some of his prisoners whom he might have dis-
coursed with, and questioned about their faith, and the
grounds of it, in order to color his intended conversion !

As this was the safest, so it was the most natural
method of bringing about such a change, instead of
ascribing it to an event which lay so open to detection
For, to use the words of St. Paul to Agrippa, this
thing teas not done in a corner, Acts, 26, but in the
eye of the world, and subject immediately to the ex-
amination of those who would be the most strict in

30 LYTTELTON ON [132

searching into the truth of it, the Jews at Damascus.
Had they beea able to bring any shadow of proof to
convict him of fraud in this affair, his whole scheme
of imposture must have been nipt in the bud. Nor
were they, at Jerusalem, whose commission he bore,
less concerned to discover so provoking a cheat. But
we find that, many years afterwards, when they had
all the time and means they could desire to make the
strictest inquiry, he was bold enough to appeal to
Agrippa, in the presence of Festus, Acts, 26, upon
his knovv'ledge of the truth of his story ; who did not
contradict him, though he had certainly heard all that
the Jevrs could allege against the credit of it in any
particular — a very remarkable proof, both of the no-
toriety of the fact, and the integrity of the man, who,
with so fearless a confidence, could call upon a king
to give testimony for him, even while he was sitting
in judgment upon him.

But to return to Ananias. Is it not strange, if this
story had been an imposture, and he had been joined
with Paul in carrying it on, that, after their meeting at
Damascus, we never should hear of their consorting
together, or acting in concert ; or that the former drew
any benefit from the friendship of the latter, when he
became so considerable among the Christians ? Did
Ananias engage and continue in such a dangerous
fraud without any hopes or desire of private advan-
tage ? Or was it safe for Paul to shake him off, ana
risk his resentment ? There is, I think, no other way
to get over this difl^iculty but by supposing that Ana
nias happened to die soon after the other's conversion.
Let us, then, take that for granted, without any autho-
rity either of history or tradition, and let us see in what

I

133] CONVERSION or paul, 31

manner tliis wondrous imposture was carried on by
Paul himself. His first care ought to have been to get
himself owned and received as an apostle by the apos-
tles. Till this was done, the bottom he stood upon
was very narrow, nor could he have any probable
means of supporting himself in any esteem or credit
among the disciples. Intruders into impostures run
double risks ; they are in danger of being detected, not
only by those upon whom they attempt' to practice
their cheats, but also by those whose society they force
themselves into, who must always be jealous of such
an intrusion, and much more from one who had al-
ways before behaved as their enemy. Therefore, to
gain the apostles, and bring them to admit him into a
participation of all their mysteries, all their designs,
and all their authority, was absolutely necessary at this
time to Paul. The least delay was of dangerous con-
sequence, and might expose him to such inconve-
niences as he never afterwards could overcome. But,
instead of attending to this necessity, he went into Ara-
bia, and then returned again to Damascus ; nor did he
go to Jerusalem till three years were past Gal. 1 : 17, 18.

Now, this conduct may be accounted for, if it be true
that (as he declares in his Epistle to the Galatians)
" he neither received the Gospel of any man, neither
was he taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus
Christ." 1 : 12. Under such a Master, and with the
assistance of his divine power, he might go on bo.dly
without any human associates ; but an impostor so left
to himself, so deprived of all help, all support, all re-
commendation, could not have succeeded.

Further : We find that, at Antioch, he was not afraid
in ivithstand Peter to his face^ and even to reprove

12 Infidelity.

22 LYTTELlOiN ON [134

him before all the disciples, because he was to be
blamed. Gal. 2 : 11-14. If he was an impostor, how
could he venture so to offend that apc.stle, whom it so
highly concerned him to agree with and please? Ac-
complices in a fraud are obliged to show greater regard
to each other ; such freedom belongs to truth alone.

But let us consider what difficulties he had to
ENCOUNTER AMONG THE Gentiles themselvcs, in the
enterprise he undertook of going to them, making him-
self their apostle, and converting them to the religion
of Christ. As this undertaking was the distinguishing
part of his apostolical functions, that which, in the lan-
guage of his epistles, he was particularly called to ;
or which, to speak like an unbeliever, he chose and
assigned to himself; it deserves a particular conside-
ration. But I shall only touch the principal points of
it as concisely as I can, because you have in a great
measure exhausted the subject in your late excellent
book on the resurrection, where you discourse with
such strength of reason and eloquence upon the diffi-
culties that opposed the propagation of the Christian
religion in all parts of the Avorld.

Now, in this enterprise St. Paul was to contend, 1.
With the policy and power of the magistrate. 2. With
the interest, credit, and craft of the priests. 3. With
the prejudice and passions of the people. 4. With the
wisdom and pride of the philosophers.

That in all heathen countries th? established reli-
gion was interwoven with their civil constitution, and
supported by the magistrate as an essential part of
the government, whoever has any acquaintance with
antiquity cannot but know. They tolerated, indeed,

135] CONVERSION OF PAUL. 33

many different worships, (though not with so entire a
latitude as some people suppose,) as they suffered men
to discourse very freely concerning religion, provided
they would submit to an exterior conformity with es-
tablished rites ; nay, according to the genius of pagan-
'ism, which allowed an intercommunity of worship,
they in most places admitted, without any great diffi-
culty, new gods and new rites ; but they no where en-
dured any attempt to overturn the established religion,
or any direct opposition made to it, esteeming that an
unpardonable offence, not to the gods alone, but to the
state. This was so universal a notion^ and so constant
a maxim of heathen policy, that when the Christian
religion set itself up in opposition to all other religions,
admitted no intercommunity with them, but declared
that the gods of the Gentiles were not to be worshiped,
nor an/ society suffered between them and ♦he only
trite Oott; when this new doctrine began to be pro-
pagated, and made such a progress as to fall under the
notice of the magistrate, the civil power was every
where armed with all its terrors against it. When,
therefore, St. Paul undertook the conversion of the
Gentiles, he knew very well that the most severe per-
secutions must be the consequence of any success in
his design.

2. This danger was rendered more certain by the
opposition he was to expect from the interest, credit,
and craft of the priests. How gainful a trade they,
with all their inferior dependants, made of those su-
perstitions which he proposed to destroy ; how muclr
credit they had with the people, as well as the state,
by the means of them; and how much craft they em-
ployed in carrying on their impostures, all history

a LYTTELTON ON [136

shows. St. Paul could not doubt that all these men
would exert their utmost abilities to stop the spread-
ing of the doctrines he preached. — doctrines which
struck at the root of their power and gain, and were
much more terrible to them than those of the most
atheistical sect of philosophers ; because the latter con-
tented themselves with denying their principles, but
at the same time declared for supporting their prac-
tices, as useful cheats, or at least acquiesced in them
as establishments authorized by the sanction of law.
Whatever, therefore, their cunning could do to support
their own worship, whatever aid they could draw from
the magistrate, whatever zeal they could raise in the,
people, St. Paul was to contend with, unsupported by
any human assistance. And

3. This he was to do in direct opposition to all the
prejicdices and passions of the people.

Now, had he confined his preaching to Judea alone,
this difficulty would not have occurred in near so great
a degree. The people were there so moved with the
miracles the apostles had wrought, as Avell as by the
memory of those done by Jesus, that, in spite of their
rulers, they began to be favorably disposed towards
them ; and we even find that the high-priest, and the
council, had more than once been withheld from treat-
ing the apostles with so much severity as they desired
to do, for fear of the people. Acts, 4 : 21, and 5 : 26.
But in the people among the Gentiles no such dispo-
si-tions could be expected : their prejudices were vio-
lent, not only in favor of their own superstitions, but
in a particular manner against any doctrines taught by
a Jew. As from their aversion to all idolatry, and ir-
reconcilable separation from all other religions, the

137] CONVERSION OF PAtJL. 39

Jews were accused of hating mankind, so were they
hated by all other nations ; nor were they hated alone,
but despised. To what a degree that contempt was
carried, appears as well by the mention made of them
in heathen authors, as by the complaints Josephus
makes of the unreasonableness and injustice of it in
his apology. What authority then could St. Paul flat-
ter himself that his preaching iv^ould carry along with
it, among people to whom he was at once both the
object of national hatred, and national scorn ? But
besides this popular prejudice agavnst a Jew, the doc-
trines he taught were such as shocked all their most
ingrafted religious opinions. They agreed to no prin-
ciples of which he could avail himself to procure their
assent to the other parts of the Gospel he preached.
To convert the Jews to Christ Jesus, he was able to
argue from their own Scriptures, upon the authority
of books which they owned to contain divine revela-
tions, and from which he could clearly convince them
that Jesus was the very Christ. Acts, 9 : 22. But all
these ideas were new to the Gentiles ; they expected no
Christ, they allowed no such Scriptures, they were to be
taught the Old Testament as well as the New. How
was this to be done by a man not even authorized by
his own nation ; opposed by those who were greatest,
and thought wisest, among them ; either quite single,
or on'y attended by one or two more under the same
disadvantages, and even of less consideration than he 1
The light of nature, indeed, without express reve-
lations, might have conducted the Gentiles to the
knowledge of one God, the Creator of all things ; and
to that light St. Paul might appeal, as we find that
he did ; Acts 14: 17 ; 17: 27, 2S. But clear as it was
12*

36 LYTTELTON ON [138

they had ahuost put it out by their superstitions, hav-
ing changed the glory of the incorruptible God into
an image made like to corruptible ^nan, and to
birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things,
and serving the creature more than the Creator.
Rom. 1 : 23, 25. And to this idolatry they were strong-
ly attached, not by their prejudices alone, but by theii
passions, which were flattered and gratified in it, as
they believed that their deities would be rendered
propitious, not by virtue and holiness, but by offer-
ings, and incense, and outward rites ; rites which daz-
zled their senses by magnificent shows, and allured
them by pleasures often of a very impure and immo-
ral nature. Instead of all this, the Gospel proposed to
them no other terms of acceptance with God but a wor-
ship of him in spirit and in i7'uth, sincere repentance,
and perfect submission to the Divine laws, the strictest
purity of life and manners, and the renouncing of all
those lusts in which they had formerly walkeil. How
unpalatable a doctrine was this to men so given up to
the power of those lusts, as the whole heathen world
was at that lime I If their philosophers could be
brought to approve it, there could be no hope that the
people would relish it, or exchange the ease and in-
dulgence which those religions in which they were
bred allowed to their appetites, for one so harsh and
severe. But might not St. Paul, in order to gain them,
relax that severity? He might have done so, no
doubt, and probably would, if he had been an impos-
tor; but it appears by all his epistles, that he preach-
ed it as purely, and enjoined it as strongly, as Jesus
himself.
Bur supposing they might be pursuaded to quit

139J CONVERSION OP PAUL. 3?

their habitual sensuality for the purity of the Gospel,
and to forsake their idolatries, which St. Paul reckons
amongst the works of the flesh, Gal. 5 : 19, 20 for
spiritual worship of the one invisible God, how were
they disposed to receive the doctrine of the salvation
of man by the cross of Jesus Christ? Could t::iey
who were bred in notions so contrary to that g^eat
mystery, to that hidden wisdom of God, which r.one
of the princes of this ivorld knew, 1 Cor. 2: 7, 8, in-
cline to receive it against the instructions of all tneir
teachers, and the example of all their superi )rs ?
Could they, whose gods had alpiost all been powerful
kings, and mighty co'nquerors — they, who at that -''ery
time paid Divine honors to the emperors of Rome,
whose only title to deification was the imperial pow-
er— could they, I say, reconcile their ideas to a ci uci-
fed So7i of God, to a Redeemer of mankind on the
cross ? Would they look there for him who is the
image of the invisible God, the first-born of e^yery
creature; by whom and for whom were all things
created that are in heaven, and that are in earthy
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or princij ali-
ties, or powers 7 Col. 1: 15, 16. No, most surely the
natural man (to speak in the words of St. Paul,
1 Cor. 2 : 14) received not these things, for they are
foolishness to him ; neither coidd he hiow them, be-
cause they are spiritually discerned. I nsay there-
fore conclude, that in the enterprise of converting the
Gentiles, St. Paul was to contend not only with the
policy and power of the magistrates, and with the
interest, credit, and craft of the priests, but also with
the prejudices and passions of the people.
4. I am next to show that he v/as to expect no less

38 LTTTLETON ON 140

opposition from the wisdom and pride of the philoso-
phers. And though some may imagina, that men
who pretended to be raised and refined above vulgar
prejudices and vulgar passions, would have been
helpful to him in his desiga, it will be found upon
examination, that instead of assisting or befriending
the Gospel, they were its worst and most irreconcil-
able enemies. For they had prejudices of their own
still more repugnant to the doctrines of Christ than
those of the vulgar, more deeply rooted, and more
obstinately fixed in their minds. The wisdom upon
which they valued themselves chiefly consisted in
vain metaphysical speculations, in logical subtleties,
in endless disputes, in high-flov/n conceits of the per-
fection and self-sufficiency of human wisdom, in
dogmatical positiveness about doubtful opinions, oi
sceptical doubts about the most clear and certair-
truths. It must appear at first sight, that nothinj
could be more contradictory to the first principles ol
the Christian religion than those of the atheistical,
or sceptical oScts, which at that tiine prevailed very
•nuch both among the Greeks arid the Romans; nor
shall we fi'^j that the theistical were much less at
enmity wjtn it, when we consider the doctrines they
held upon the nature of God and the soul.

But I will not enlarge on a subject which the most
learned Mr. Warhurton handled so well. Div. Leg.
1:3. If it were necessary to enter particulaily into
this argument, I could easily prove that there Avas not
one of all the diflerent philosophical sects then upon
earth, not even the Platonics themselves, who are
thought to favor it most, that did not maintain some
opinions fundamentally contrary to those of the Gos

141j CONVERSION OP PAUL. 36

pel. And in this they all agreed, to explode as m.^st
unphilosophical, and contrary to every notion t.iat
any among them maintained, that great article of '.he
Christian religion, upon which the foundations of it
are laid, and without which St. Paul declares to ais
proselytes, their faith wo2ild be vain; 1 Cor. 15* 17,
20; the resurrection of the dead with their bodies, of
which resurrection Christ was the first-born. Col. 1 :
18. Besides the contrariety of their tenets to those of
the Gospel, the pride that was common to all -lie
philosophers, was of itself an almost invincible ob-
stacle against the admission of the evangelical doc-
trines calculated to humble that pride, and teach
them, that professing themselves to be wise, they be-
came fools. Rom. 1: 22. This pride was no i)ss
intractable, no less averse to the instructions of
Christ, or of his apostles, than that of the Scribes and
Pharisees. St. Paul was therefore to contend, in ais
enterprise of converting the Gentiles, with all she
opposition that could be made to it by all the different
sects of philosophers. And how formidable an op-
position this was, let those consider who are ac-
quainted from history with the great credit thjse
sects had obtained at that time in the world ; a credit
even superior to that of the priests. Whoever pre-
tended to learning or virtue was their disciple ; the
greatest magistrates, generals, kings, ranged them-
selves under their discipline, were trained up in their
schools, and professed the opinions they taught.

All these sects made it a maxim not to disturb ihe
popular worship, or established religion; but unier
those limitations they taught very freely whiterer
they pleased ; and no religious opinions were more

40 LYTTELTON ON [142

warmly supported than those they delivered were by
their followers The Christian religion at once over-
turned their several systems, taught a morality more
perfect than theirs, and established it upon higher and
much stronger foundations ; mortified their pride, con-
founded their learning, discovered their ignorance,
ruined their credit. Against such an enemy, what
would they not do ? Would not they exert the whole
power of their rhetoric, the whole art of their logic,
their influence over the people, their interest with the
great, to discredit a novelty so alarming to them all?
If St. Paul had had nothing to trust to but his own
natural faculties, his own understanding, knowledge,
and eloquence, could he have hoped to be singly a
match for all theirs united against him? Could a
teacher unheard of before, from an obscure and un-
.earned part of the world, have withstood the autho-
rity of Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Z3no, Arcesilaus.
Carneades, and all the great names which held the
first rank of human wisdom ? He might as well have
attempted alone, or with the help of Barnabas, and
Silas, and Timotheus, and Titus, to have erected a
monarchy upon the ruins of all the several states then
in the world, as to have erected Christianity upon the
destruction of all the several sects of philosophy which
reigned in the minds of the Gentiles, among whom he
preached, particularly the Greeks and the Romans.

Having thus proved, as I think, that in the work of
converting the Gentiles, St. Paul could have no assis-
tance ; but was sure, on the contrary, of the utmost
repugnance and opposition to it imaginable from the
magistrates, from the priests, from the people, and from
the philosophers ; it necessarily follows, that to sue-

143J CONVERSION OP PAUL. 41

ceed in that work, he must have called in some extra-
ordinary aid, some stronger power than that of reason
and argument. Accordingly, we find, he tells the Co-
rinthians, that his speech and preaching was not with
enticing words of man''s wisdom^ hut in demonstra-
tion of the Spirit, and of power. 1 Cor. 2 : 4. And
to the Thessalonians he says. Our Gospel came not
unto you in word only, hut also in power, and in the
Holy Ghost. 1 Thess. 1:5. It was to the efficacy of
?.he divine power that he ascribed all his success in
those countries, and wherever else he planted the Gos-
pel of Christ. If that power really went with him, it
would enable nim to overcome all those difficulties
that obstructed his enterprise ; but then he was not
an impostor.

Our inquiry, therefore, must be, whether (supposing
him to have been an impostor) he could, by pretend-
ing TO MIRACLES, have overcome all those difficulties,
and carried on his work with success ? Now, to give
miracles, falsely pretended to, any reputation, two cir-
cumstances are principally necessary — an apt dispo-
sition in those whom they are designed to impose upon,
and a powerful confederacy to carry on and abet the
cheat. Both these circumstances, or at least one of
them, have always accompanied all the false miracles,
ancient and modern, which have obtained any credit
among mankind. To both these was owing the gene-
ral faith of the heathen world in oracles, auspices,
auguries, and other impostures, by which the priests,
combined with the magistrates, supported the national
worship and deluded a people prepossessed in their
favor, an » willing to be deceived. Both the same caus-

42 LYTTELTON ON |14i

es likewise co-operate in the belief that is given to
Popish miracles among those of their own church.
But neither of these assisted St. Paul. What prepos-
session could there have been in the minds of the
Gentiles, either in favor of him or the doctrines he
taught ? Or, rather, what prepossessions could be
stronger than those which they, undoubtedly, had
agamst both ? If he had remained in Judea, it might
hav e been suggested by unbelievers, that the Jews were
a credulous people, apt to seek after miracles, and to
afford them an easy belief; and that the fame of those
said to be done by Jesus himself, and by his apostles,
before Paul declared his conversion, had predisposed
their minds, and warmed their imaginations, to the
admission of others supposed to be wrought by the
same power.

The signal miracle of the apostles speaking with
tongues on the day of Pentecost, had made three
thousand converts ; that of healing the lame man at
rhe gate of the temple, five thousand more. Acts, 2 :
41 ; 4 : 4. Nay, such was the faith of the multitude,
tJiar they brought forth the sick into the streets, and
laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the
sh aclow of Peter passing by raight overshadow some
oj them. Acts, 5 : 15. Here was, therefore, a good
foundation laid for Paul to proceed upon in pretend-
ing to similar miraculous works ; though the priests
and the rulers were hardened against them, the peo-
ple were inclined to give credit to them, and there was
reason to hope for success among them both at Jeru-
salem and in all the regions belonging to the Jews.
But no such dispositions were to be found in the Gen-
tiles. There was among them no matter prepared for

145] CONVERSION OF PAUL. 43

imposture to work upon, no knowledge of Christ, no
thought of his power, or of the power of those who
came in his name. Thus, when at Lystra, St. Paul
healed the man who was a cripple from his birth.
Acts, 14, so far were the people there from supposing
Ihat he could be able to do such a thing, as an apos-
tle of Christy or by any virtue derived from him, that
they took Paul and Barnabas to be gods of their own,
come down in the likeness of me% and would have
sacrificed to them as such.

Now, I ask, did the citizens of Lystra concur in this
matter to the deceiving of themselves ? Were their
imaginations overheated with any conceits of a mira-
culous power belonging to Paul, which could dispose
them to think he worked such a miracle when he did
not ? As the contrary is evident, so in all other places
to which he carried the Gospel, it may be proved to
demonstration, that he could find no disposition, no
aptness, no bias to aid his imposture, if the miracles,
by which he every where confirmed his preaching, had
not been true.

On the other hand, let us examine whether, without
the advantage of such an assistance, there was any
confederacy strong enough to impose his false mira-
cles upon the Gentiles, who were both unprepared and
undisposed to receive them. The contrary is apparent.
He was in no combination with their priests or their
magistrates ; no sect or party among them gave him
any help ; all eyes were open and watchful to detect
his impostures ; all hands ready to punish him as soon
as detected. Had he remained in Judea, he would,
at least, have had many confederates, all the apostle:.,
all the disciples of Christ, at that time pretty nume •

13 lufidelitjr

44 LVTTELTON 05 [146

rous ; but in preaching to the Gentiles, he was often
alone, rarely with more than two or three companions
or followers. Was this a confederacy powerful enough
to carry on such a cheat, in so many different parts of
the world, against the united opposition of the magis-
trates, priests, philosophers, people, all combined to
detect and expose their frauds ?

Let it be also considered, that those upon whom
they practiced these arts were not a gross or ignorant
people, apt to mistake any uncommon operations of
nature, or juggling tricks, for miraculous acts. The
churches planted by St. Paul were in the most en-
lightened parts of the world: among the Greeks of
Asia and Europe, among the Romans, in the midst
of science, philosophy, freedom of thought, and in
an age more inquisitively curious into the powers of
nature, and less inclined to credit religious frauds than
any before it. Nor were they only the lowest of the
people thai he converted. Sergius Paulus, the pro-
consul of Paphos ; Erastus, chamberlain of Corinth ;
and Dionysius, the Areopagite, were his proselytes.

Upon the whole, it appears beyond contradiction,
that his pretension to miracles was not assisted by the
disposition of those whom he designed to convert by
those means, nor by any powerful confederacy to car-
ry on, and abet the cheat, without both which concur-
ring circumstances, or one at least, no such pretension
was ever supported with any success.

Both these circumstances concurred even in the
late famous miracles supposed to be done at Abbe
Paris's tomb. They had not indeed the support of
the government, and for that reason appear to deserve
more attention than other Popish miracles : but they

147] CONVERSION OP PAUL. 45

were supported by all the Jansenists, a very powerful
and numerous party in France, made up partly of
wise and able men, partly of bigots and enthusiasts.
All these confederated together to give credit to mi-
racles, said to be worked in behalf of their party ; and
those who believed them were strongly disposed to
that belief. And yet, with these advantages, how
easily were they suppressed ! Only by walling up
that part of the church where the tomb of the saint,
who was supposed to work them, was placed ! Soon
after this was done, a paper was fixed on the wall
with this inscription :

De par le roy defense a Dieu
De faire miracle en ce lieu.

By command of the king, God is forbidden to
work any more miracles here. The pasquinade was
a witty one, but the event turned the point of it
against the party by which it was made : for if God
had really worked any miracles there, could this ab-
surd prohibition have taken effect ? Would he have
suffered his purpose to be defeated by building a
wall? When all the apostles were shut up in prison
to hinder their working of miracles, the angel of the
Lord opened the prison doors, and let them out. Acts,
5 : 16-26. But the power of Abbe Paris could neither
throw down the wall that excluded his votaries, nor
operate through that impediment. And yet his mira-
cles are often compared with, and opposed by unbe-
lievers to those of Christ and his apostles, which is
the reason of my having taken this particular notice
of them here. But to go back to the times nearer to
St. Paul's.

46 LYTTELTON ON [143

There is in Lucian an account of a very extraordi-
nary and successful imposture carried on in his days,
by one Alexander of Pontus, who introduced a new
god into that country, whose prophet he called him-
self, and in whose name he pretended to miracles,
and delivered oracles, by which he acquired great
wealth and power. All the arts by which this cheat
was managed are laid open by Lucian, and nothing
can better point out the difference between imposture
and truth, than to observe the different conduct of this
man and St. Paul. Alexander made no alteration in
the religion established in Pontus before ; he only
grafted his own upon it ; and spared no pains to in-
terest in the success of it the whole heathen priest-
nood, not only in Pontus, but all over the world, send-
mg great numbers of those who came to consult him
to other oracles, that were at that time in the highest
vogue ; by which means he engaged them all to sup-
port the reputation of his, and abet his imposture. He
spoke with the greatest respect of all the sects of phi-
losophy, except the Epicureans, who from their prin-
ciples he was sure would deride and oppose his fraud }
for though they presumed not to innovate, and over-
turn established religions, yet they very freely attack-
ed and exposed all innovations that were introduced
under the name of religion, and had not the authority
of a legal establishment. To get the better of their
opposition, as well as that of the Christians, he called
in the aid of persecution and force, exciting the people
against them, and answering objections with stones

That he might be sure to get money enough, he de-
livered this oracle in the name of his god : / command
vow to grace with gifts my 'prophet and minister

i

149] CONVERSION OF PAUL. 47

for I have no regard for riches myself, hut the great-
est for my prophet. And he shared the gains that he
made, which were immense, among an infinite num-
ber of associates, and instruments, whom he employed
in carrying on and supporting his fraud. When any-
declared themselves to be his enemies, against whom
he durst not proceed by open force, he endeavored to
gain them by blandishments ; and having got them into
his power, to destroy them by secret ways ; which arts
he practiced against Lucian himself. Others he kept
in awe and dependence upon him, by detaining in
his own hands the written questions they had pro-
posed to his god upon state aflfairs ; and as these ge-
nerally came from men of the greatest power and
rank, his being possessed of them was of infinite ser-
vice to him, and made him master of all their credit,
and of no little part of their wealth.

He obtained the protection and friendship of Ruti-
lianus, a great Roman general, by flattering him with
promises of a very long life, and exaltation to deity af-
ter his death ; and at last having quite turned his head,
enjoined him by an oracle to marry his daughter, whom
he pretended to have had by the moon : which com-
mand Rutilianus obeyed, and by his alliance secured
this impostor from any danger of punishment; the
Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus excusing
himself on that account from doing justice upon hira,
when Lucian and several others offered themselves to
be his accusers.

He never quitted that ignorant and barbarous coun-
try, which he had made choice of at first as the fittest
place to play his tricks in undiscovered ; but residing
himself among those superstitious and credulous peo-
13*

48 LTTTLETON ON [150

pie extended his fame to a great distance by the emis-
saries which he employed all over the world, espe-
cially at Rome, who did not pretend themselves to
work any miracles, but only promulgated his, snd
gave him intelligence of all that it was useful for him
to know.

These were the methods by wliich tliis remarkable
fraud was conducted, every one of which is directly
opposite to all those used by St. Paul in preaching
the Gospel; and yet such methods alone could give
success to a cheat of this kind. I will not mention the
many debaucheries and wicked enormities committed
by this false prophet, under the mask of religion, which
is another characteristic difference between him and
St. Paul; nor the ambiguous answers, cunning eva-
sions, and juggling artifices which he made use of, in
all which it is easy to see the evident marks of an im-
posture, as well as in the objects he plainly appears to
have had in view. That which I chiefly insist upon is,
the strong confederacy with which he took care to sup-
port his pretension to miraculous powers, and the apt
disposition in those he imposed upon to concur and
assist in deceiving themselves; advantages entirely
wanting to the apostle of Christ.

From all this it may be concluded, that no human
means employed by St. Paul, in his design of convert-
ing the Gentiles, were, or could be adequate to the
great difficulties he had to contend with, or to the suc-
cess thii'; we know attended his work ; and we can in
reason ascribe that success to no other cause but the
power of God going along with, and aiding his minis-
try, because no other was equal to the effect.

151J CONVERSION OP PAUL. 49

II. Paul not au Entbusiast.

Having then shown that St. Paul had no raticnai
motives to become an apostle of Christ, without being
himself convinced of the truth of that Gospel he
preached ; and that, had he engaged in such an impos-
ture, without any rational motives, he would have had
no possible means to carry it on with any success :
having also brought reasons of a very strong nature
to make it appear that the success he undoubtedly had
in preaching the Gospel, was an effect of the divine
power attending his ministry, I might rest all my proof
of the Christian religion, being a divine revelation,
upon the arguments drawn from this head alone. But
to consider this subject in all possible lights, I shall
pursue the proposition which I set out with, through
each of its several parts ; and having proved, as I hope,
to the conviction of any impartial man, that St. Paul
was not an impostor, who said what he knew to be
false, with an intent to deceive, I come next to consi-
der whether he was an enthusiast, who, by the force
of an overheated imagination imposed upon himself.

Now, these are the ingredients of which enthusiasm
is generally composed : great heat of temper, melan-
choly, ignorance, credulity, and vanity, or self-con-
ceit. That the first of these qualities was in St. Paul,
may be concluded from that fervor of zeal with which
he acted, both as a Jew and Christian, in maintaining
that which he thought to be right ; and hence, I sup-
pose, as well as from the impossibility of his having
been an impostor, some unbelievers have chosen to
consider him as an enthusiast. But this quality alone
will not be su/ficient to prove him to have been so in

50 LTTTELTON ON [152

the opinion of any reasonable man. The same tem-
per has been common to others, who undoubtedly were
not enthusiasts ; to the Gracchi, to Cato, to Brutus,
to many more among the bestand wisest of men. Nor
does it appear that this disposition had such a mastery
over the mind of St. Paul that he was not able, at all
times, to rule and control it by the dictates of reason.
On the contrary, he was so much the master of it, as,
in matters of an indifferent nature, to become all things
to all men; 1 Cor. 9 : 20 — 22; bending his notions
and manners to theirs, so far as his duty to God would
permit, with the most pliant condescension ; a conduct
neither compatible with the stiffness of a bigot, nor
the violent impulses of fanatical delusions. His zeal
was eager and warm, but tempered with prudence,
and even with the civilities and decorums of life, as
appears by his behavior to Agrippa, Festus, and Fe-
lix ; not the blind, inconsiderate, indecent zeal of an
enthusiast.

Let us now see if any one of those other qualities
which I have laid down, as disposing the mind to en-
thusiasm, and as being characteristical of it, belong to
St. Paul. First, as to melancholy^ which of all dis-
positions of body or mind, is most prone to enthusiasm ;
it neither appears by his writings, nor by any thing told
of him in the Acts of the Apostles, nor by any other
evidence, that St. Paul was inclined to it more than
other men. Though he was full of remorse for his
former ignorant persecution of the church of Christ
we read of no gloomy penances, no extravagant mor-
tification, such as the Brahmins, the Jaugues, the
monks of La Trappe, and other melancholy enthusi-
asts inflict on themselves. His holiness only consisted

153] CONVERSION OP PAUL. 51

in the simplicity of a good life, and the unwear ed per-
formance of those apostolical duties to which he was
called. The sufferings he met with on that account,
he cheerfully bore, and even rejoiced in them for the
love of Jesus Christ; but he brought none on himself ;
we find, on the contrary, that he pleaded the privilege
of a Roman citizen to avoid being whipped. 1 could
mention more instances of his having used the best
methods that prudence could suggest, to escape dan-
ger, and shun persecution, whenever it could be done
without betraying the duty of his office or the honor
of God.

A remarkable instance of this appears in his con-
duct among the Athenians. There was at Athens a
law which made it a capital offence to introduce or
teach any new gods in their state. Acts, 17, and Jose-
phus coDt. Apion. 1. 2 : c. 7. • Therefore, when Paul
was preaching Jesus and the resurrection to the Athe-
nians, seme of them carried him before the court of
Areopagus, (the ordinary judges of criminal matters,
and in a particular manner entrusted with the care of
religion,) as having broken this law, and being a set-
ter forth of strange gods. Now, in this case, an im-
postor would have retracted his doctrine to save his
life, and an enthusiast would have lost his life with-
out trying to save it by innocent means. St. Paul did
neither the one nor the other ; he availed himself of
an altar which he had found in the city, inscribed to
the unknown God, and pleaded that he did not pro-
pose to them the worship of any new God, but only
explain to them one whom their government had al-
ready received ; whom therefore ye ignorantly wor-
ship^ him declare I unto you. By this he avoided the

52 LYTTELTON ON [154

law, and escaped being condemned by the Areopagus,
without departing in the least from the truth of the
Gospel, or violating the honor of God. An admira-
ble proof, in my opinion, of the good sense with which
he acted, and one that shows there was no mixture of
fanaticism in his religion.

Compare with this the conduct of Francis of Assisi
of Ignatius Loyola, and other enthusiasts sainted by
Rome, it will be found the reverse of St Paul's, "^e
'wished indeed to die and he with Christ f^ but such
a wish is no proof of melancholy, or of enthusiasm ;
it only proves his conviction of the divine truths he
preached, and of the happiness laid up for him in those
blessed abodes which had been shown to him even in
this life. Upon the whole, neither in his actions, nor
in the instructions he gave to those under his charge,
is there any tincture o^melancholy ; which yet is so
essential a characteristic of enthusiasm, that I have
scarce ever heard of any enthusiast, ancient or mo-
dern, in whom some very evident marks of it did not
appear.

As to ignorance^ which is another ground of enthu-
siasm, St. Paul was so far from it, that he appears to
have been master not of the Jewish learning alone, but
of the Greek. And this is one reason virhy he is less
liable to the imputation of having been an enthusiast
than the other apostles, though none of them were
such any more than he, as may by other arguments be
invmcibly proved.

I have mentioned credulity as another characteristic
and cause of enthusiasm, which, that it was not in St
Paul, the history of his life undeniably shows. Foi
on the contrary, he seems to have been slow and hard

155] CONVERSION OF PAUL. 63

of belief in the extremest degree, having paid no re-
gard to all the miracles done by our Savior, the fame
of \\rhich he could not be a stranger to, as he lived in
Jerusalem, nor to that signal one done after his result*
rection, and in his name, by Peter and John, upon the
lame man at the beautiful gate of the temple ; nor to
the evidence given in consequence of it by Peter, in
presence of the high-priest, the rulers, elders, and
scribes, that Christ was raised from the dead. Acts,
3. He must also have known that when all the apos-
tles had been shut up in the common prison, and the
high-priest, the council, and all the senate of the chil-
dren of Israel had sent their officers to bring them
before them, the officers came andfotmd them not in
prison, but returned and made this report : " The
prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the
keepers standirig without before the doors, but ichen
we had opened we found no man withiny And that
the council was immediately told, that the men they
had put in prison were standing in the temple, and
teaching the people. And that being brought from
thence before the council, they had spoke these memo-
rable words, " We ought to obey God rather than
men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom
ye slew and. hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalt-
ed with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior,
for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of
sins. And we are his witnesses of these things, and
so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to
them that obey him." Acts, 5 : 18-32. All this he re-
sisted, and was consenting to the murder of Stephen,
who preached the same thing, and evinced it by mira-
cles. Acts, 8:1. So that his mind, far from being

64 LYTTELTON OX [156

disposed to a credulous faith, or a too easy reception
of any miracle worked in proof of the Christian reli-
gion, appears to have been barred against it by the
most obstinate prejudices, as much as any man's could
possibly be J and from hence we may fairly conclude,
that nothing less than the irresistible evidence of his
own senses, clear from all possibility of doubt, could
have overcome his unbelief.

Vanity or self-conceit is another circumstance that,
for the most part, prevails in the character of an en-
thusiast. It leads men of a warm temper, and religious
turn, to think themselves worthy of the special regard
and extraordinary favors of God ; and the breath of that
inspiration to which they pretend is often no more
than the wind of this vanity, which puffs them up to
such extravagant imaginations. This strongly appears
in the writings and lives of some enthusiastical here-
tics ; in the mystics, both ancient and modern ; in many
founders of orders and saints, both male and female,
amongst the Papists, in several Protestant sectaries of
the last age, and even in some at the present time.*
All the divine communications, illuminations, and ec-
stacies to which they have pretended, evidently sprung
from much self-conceit, working together with the va-
pors of melancholy upon a warm imagination. And
this is one reason, besides the contagious nature of
melancholy, or fear, that makes enthusiasm so very
catching among weak minds. Such are most strongly

* See tbe account of Montanus and his followers, the writings
of the counterfeit Dionysius the Areopagde, Santa Theresa,
St. Catherine of Sienna, Madame Bourignon, the lives of St.
Francis of Assisi, and Ignatius Loyola ; see also an account of
the lives of George Fox, and of Rice Evans.

157j CONVERSION OP PAUL. 66^

disposed to vanity ; and when they see others pretend
to extraordinary gifts, are apt to flatter themselves that
they may partake of them as well as those whose me-
lit they think no more than their own. Vanity, there-
fore, may justly be deemed a principal source of en-
thusiasm. But that St. Paul was as free from it as any
man, I think may be gathered from all that we see in
his writings, or know of his life. Throughout his epis-
tles there is not one word that savors of vanity ; nor is
any action recorded of him in which the least mark
of it appears.

In his epistle to the Ephesians, he calls himself less
than the least of all saints. Ephes. 3 : 8. And to the
Corinthians he says, he is the least of the apostleSy
and not meet to be called an apostle, because he had
persecuted the church of God. 1 Cor. 15 9. In his
epistle to Timothy he says : " This is a faithful say-
ing, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus
came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am
chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that
in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-
suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter
believe in him to life everlasting." 1 Tim. 1 : 15, 16.

It is true, indeed, that in another epistle he tells the
Corinthians that he was not a ichit behind the very
chief est of the apostles. 2 Cor. 11:5. But the occa-
sion which drew from him these words must be con-
sidered. A false teacher by faction and calumny had
brought his apostleship to be in question among the
Corinthians. Against such an attack, not to have as-
serted his apostolical dignity, would have been a be-
traying of the office and duty committed to him by
God. He was therefore constrained to do himself jus-

J 4 Infidelity.

56 LYTTELTON ON [158

tice, and not let down that character, upon the autho-
rity of which the whole success and efficacy of his
ministry among them depended. But how did he do
it? Not with that wantonness which a vain man in-
dulges, when he can get any opportunity of commend-
ing himself: not with a pompous detail of all the amaz-
ing miracles which he had performed in different parts
of the world, though he had so fair an occasion of do-
ing it ; but with a modest and simple exposition of his
abundant labors and sufferings in preaching the Gos-
pel, and barely reminding them, " that the signs of an
apostle had been wrought among them in all patience
in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." 2 Cor. 12 ;
12. Could he say less than this ? Is not such boast-
ing humility itself? And yet for this he makes many
apologies, expressing the greatest uneasiness in being
obliged to speak thus of himself, even in his own vin-
dication. 2 Cor. 11 : 1-16; 19-30. When in the same
epistle, and for the same purpose, he mentions the vi-
sion he had of heaven, hoAV modestly does he do it !
Not in his own name, but in the third person, I knew
a man in Christ, (fc. caught up into the third hea-
ven. 2 Cor. 12 : 2. And immediately after he adds,
but noxD I forbear, lest any ma7i should think of me
above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth
of me. 2 Cor. 12 : 6. How contrary is this to a spirit
of vanity ! how different from the practice of enthusi-
astic pretenders to raptures and visions, who never
think they can dwell long enough upon those subjects,
but fill whole volumes with their accounts of them!
Yet St. Paul is not satisfied with this forbearance ; he
adds the confession of some infirmity, which he tells
the Corinthians was given to him as an allav, that he

159") CONVERSION OF PAUL. 57

might not be above measure exalted^ through the
abundance of his revelations. 2 Cor. 12 : 7. I would
also observe, that he says this rapture, or vision oi
paradise, happened to him above fourteen years before.
Now, had it been the effect of a mere enthusiastical
fancy, can it be supposed that in so long a period of
time he would not have had many more raptures oi
the same kind ? would not his imagination have been
perpetually carrying him to heaven, as we find St.
Theresa, St. Bridget, and St. Catharine were carried
by theirs ? And if vanity had been predominant in him,
would he have remained fourteen years in absolute si-
lence upon so great a mark of the divine favor? No,
we should certainly have seen his epistles filled with
nothing else but long accounts of these visions, con-
ferences with angels, Avith Christ, with God Almigh-
ty, mystical unions with God, and all that we read in
the works of those sainted enthusiasts, whom I have
mentioned before. But he only mentions this vision
in answer to the false teacher who had disputed his
apostolical power, and" comprehends it all in three sen-
tences, with many excuses for being compelled to make
any mention of it at all. 2 Cor. 12 : 1-11. Nor does
he take any merit to himself, even from the success of
those apostolical labors which he principally boasts of
in his epistle. For in a former one to the same church
he writes thus, " Who then is Paul, and who is Apol-
los, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the
Lord gave to every man ? I have planted, Apollos wa-
tered, but God gave the increase. So then, neither is
he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth,
but God that giveth the increase." And in another
place of the same epistle he says, "by the grace of

58 LYTTELTON ON [160

God I am what I am, and his grace which was be-
stowed upon me was not in vain, but I labored more
abundantly than they all : yet not /, hiU the grace of
God which was with 77ie." 1 Cor. 15 : 10.

I think it needless to give more instances of the
modesty of St. Paul. Certain I am, not one can be
given that bears any color of vanity, or that vanity in
particular which so strongly appears in all enthusi-
asts, of setting their imaginary gifts above those vir-
tues which make the essence of true religion, and the
real excellency of a good man, or in the Scripture
phrase, of a saint. In his first Epistle to the Corin-
thians he has these words, " Though I speak with the
tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity,
I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and under-
stand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though
I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,
and have not charity, I am nothing. And though -
I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I
give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it
profiteth me nothing. " 1 Cor. 13 : 2 — 4. Is this the
language of enthusiasm ? Did ever enthusiast prefer
that universal benevolence which comprehends all
moral virtues, and which (as appears by the following
verses) is meant by charity here; did ever enthusiast,
I say, prefer that benevolence to faith and to mira-
cles, to those religious opinions which he had em'
braced, and to those supernatural graces and gifts
which he imagined he had acquired, nay even to the
merit of martyrdom ? Is it not the genius of enthusi-
asm to set moral virtues infinitely below the merit of
faith ; and of all moral virtues, to value that least

161] CONVERSION OF PAUL. 59

which is most particularly enforced by St. Paul, a
spirit of candor, moderation, and peace? Certainly
neither the temper, nor the opinions of a man subject
to fanatical delusions, are to be found in this pas-
sage; but it may be justly concluded, that he who
could esteem the value of charity so much above mi-
raculous gifts, could not have pretended to any such
gifts if he had them not in reality.

Since, then, it is manifest from the foregoing ex-
amination, that in St. Paul's disposition and character
those qualities do Qot occur which seem to be neces-
sary to form an enthusiast, it must be reasonable
to conclude he was none. But allowing, for argu-
ment's sake, that all those qualities were to be found
in him, or that the heat of his temper alone could be
a sufficient foundation to support such a suspicion ;
I shall endeavor to prove that he could not have im-
posed ON HIMSELF by any power of enthusiasm, either
in regard to the miracle that caused his conversion,
or to the consequential effects of it, or to some other
circumstances which he bears testimony to in his
epistles.

The power of imagination in enthusiastical minds
is no doubt very strong, but it always acts in confor-
mity to the opinions imprinted upon it at the time of
its working; and can no more act against them, than
a rapid river can carry a boat against the current ot
its own stream. Now. nothing can be more certain
than that when Saul set out for Damascus, with an
authority from the chief priests to bring the Chris-
tians which were there, hound to Jerusalem, Acts,
12 : 2, an authority solicited by himself, and granted
14*

60 LYTTELTON ON [162

to him at his own earnest desire, his mind was strong-
ly possessed with opinions against Christ and his fol-
lowers. To give those opinions a more active force,
his passions at that time concurred, being inflamed
in the highest degree by the iiritating consciousness
of his past conduct towards them, the pride of sup-
porting a part he had voluntarily engaged in, and the
credit he found it procured him among the chief priests
and rulers, whose commission he bore.

If in such a state and temper of mind, an enthusi-
astical man had imagined he saw a vision from
heaven denouncing the anger of God against the
Christians, and commanding him to persecute them
without any mercy, it might be accounted for by the
natural power of enthusiasm. But that, in the very
instant of his being engaged in the fiercest and hot-
test persecution against them, no circumstance hav-
ing happened to change his opinions, or alter the bent
of his disposition, he should at once imagine himself
called by a heavenly vision to be the apostle of
Christ, whom but a moment before he deemed an im-
postor and a blasphemer, that had been jus'ly put to
death on the cross, is in itself wholly incredible, an<^
so far from being a probable effect of enthusiasm, that
just a contrary effect must have been naturally pro-
duced by that cause. The warmth of his tempc
carried him violently another way ; and whatever de
lusions his imagination could raise to impose on hia
reason, must have been raised at that time agreeable
to the notions imprinted upon it, and by which it wa»
heated to a degree of enthusiasm, not in direct con
tradiction to all those notions, while t*hey remained in
their full force

163] CONVERSION OP PAUL. 61

This is so clear a proposition, that I might rest the
whole argument entirely upon it ; but still farther to
show that this vision could net be a phantom of St.
Paul's own creating, I beg leave to observe, that he
was not alone when he saw it ; there were many
others in company, whose minds were no better dis-
posed than his to the Christian faith. Could it be
possible, that the imaginations of all these men should
at the same time be so strangely affected as to make
them believe that they saw a great light shining
about them, above the brightness of the sun at noon-
day, and heard the sound of a voice from heaven,
hough not the words which it spake. Acts, ^: 3;
22: 9, when in reality they neither saw nor lu^ard
any such thing? Could they be so infatuated with
ihis conceit of their fancy, as to fall down together
Willi Saul, and be speechless through fear, Acts, 26:
14. 9: 7, when nothing had happened extraordinary
either to them or to him? Especially, considering
that this apparition did not happen in the night, when
the senses are more easily imposed upon, but at mid-
day. If a sudden frenzy had seized upon Saul, from
any distemper of brdy or mind, can we suppose his
whole company, men of different constitutions and
understandings, to have been at once affected in the
same manner with him, so that not the distemper
alone, but the effects of it should exactly agree ? If
all had gone mad together, would not the frenzy of
some have taken a different turn, and presented to
them different objects? This supposition is so con-
trary to nature and all possibility, that unbelief must
find some other solution, or give up the point.

I shall suppor>e then, in order to try to account for

62 LYTTELTON ON fl64

this vision without a miracle, that as Saul and his
company were journeying along in their way to
Damascus an extraordinary meteor did really happen,
which cast a great light, as some meteors will do,
at which they, being affrighted, fell to the ground
in the manner related. This might be possible ;
and fear, grounded on ignorance of such phenomena,
might make them imagine it to be a vision of God.
Nay, even the voice or sound they heard in the air,
might be an explosion attending this meteor ; or at
least there are those who would rather recur to such
a supposition as this, however incredible, than ac-
knowledge the miracle. But how will this account
for the distinct words heard by St. Paul, to which he
made answer? How will it account for what follow-
ed upon it when he came to Damascus, agreeably to
the sense of those words which he heard? How
came Ananias to go to him there and say, " He was
chosen by God to know his will, and see that just
One, and hear the voice of his mouth?" Acts, 22:
] i. 26 : 16. Or why did he propose to him to be
baptized? What connection was there between the
meteor which Saul had seen, and these words of
Ananias? Will it be said that Ananias was skilful
enough to take advantage of the fright he was in at
that appearance, in order to make him a Christian 7
But could Ananias inspire him with the vision in
M'liich he saw him before he came ? If that vision was
the effect of imagination, how was it verified so ex-
actly in fact ? Acts, 9. But allowing that he dreamt
by chance of Ananias' coming, and that Ananias
came by chance too ; or, if you please, that having
heard of his dream, he came to take advantage of that

165] CONVERSION OF PAUL. 63

as well as of the meteor which Saul had seen ; will
this get over the difficulty ? No, there was more to
be done. Saul was struck blind, and had been so for
three days. Now, had this blindness been natural from
the effects of a meteor or lightning upon him, it would
not have been possible for Ananias to heal it, as we
find that he did, merely by putting his hands on him
and speaking a few words. Acts, 9 : 17, IS. 22 : 13.
This undoubtedly surpassed the power of nature ;
and if this was a miracle, it proves the other to have
been a miracle too, and a miracle done by the same
Jesus Christ. For Ananias, when he healed Saul,
spoke to him thus : Brother Saul, the Lord, even
Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the v^ay as thou
earnest, has sent me, that thou mightest receive thy
sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Acts, 9: 17.
And that he saw Christ both now and after this time,
appears not only by what he relates, Acts, 27: 17, IS,
but by other passages in his epistles. 1 Cor. 9 : 1 ; 15 :
8. From him, as he asserts in many places of his
epistles, he learned the Gospel by immediate reve-
lation, and by him he was sent to the Gentiles. Acts,
22: 21; 22: 11. Among those Gentiles from Jeru-
salem, and round about to Illiricum, he preached the
Gospel of Christ, with mighty signs and wonders,
wrought by the power of the Spirit of God, to make
them obedient to his preaching, as he himself testi-
fies in his epistle to the Romans ; Rom. 15 : 19 ; and
of which a particular account is given to us in the
Acts of the Apostles ; signs and wonders, indeed,
above any power of nature to work, or of imposturw
to counterfeit, or of enthusiasm to imagine. Now,
does not such a series of miraculous acts, all conse-

G4 LfTTBl.TON ON [i6i

quential and dependent upon the first revelation, put
tile truth of that revelation beyond all possibility of
doubt or deceit ? And if he could so have imposed
on himself as to think that he worked them when he
did not, (which supposition cannot be admitted, if he
was not at that time quite out of his senses,) how could
50 distempered an enthusiast make such a progress,
•^s we know that he did, in converting the Gentile
world ? If the difficulties which have been shown to
have obstructed that work, were such as the ablest
impostor could not overcome, how much more insur-
mountable were they to a madman ?

It is a much harder task for unbelievers to a<Jcount
for the success of St. Paul, in preaching the Gospel,
upon the supposition of his having been an enthusi-
ast, than of his having been an impostor. Neither ot
these suppositions can ever account for it;. but the
impossibility is more glaringly strong in this case
than in the other. I could enter into a particular ex-
amination of all the miracles recorded in the Acts to
have been done by St. Paul, and show that they were
not of a nature in which enthusiasm, either in him, or
the persons he worked them upon, or the spectators,
could have any part. I will mention only a few.
When he told Elymas the sorcerer, at Paphos, before
the Roman deputy, that the hand of God icas upon
him, and he should be blind, not seeing the sun for
a season ; and immediately there fell on him a mist
and a darkness, and he went about seeking some to
lead him by the hand. Acts, 13, had enthusiasm in
the doer or sufferer any share in this act ? If Paul, as
an enthusiast, had thrown out this menace, and the
effect had not followed, instead of converting the d*"

167] CONrERSION OF PAUL. 65

puty, as we are told that he did, he would have drawn
on himself his rage and contempt. But the effect up-
on Elymas could not be caused by enthusiasm in
Paul, much less can it be imputed to an enthusiastic
belief in that person himself, of his being struck blind,
when he was not, by these words of a man whose
preaching he strenuously and bitterly opposed. Nor
can we ascribe the conversion of Sergius, which
happened upon it, to any enthusiasm. A Roman
proconsul was not very likely to be an enthusiast ;
but, had he been one, he must have been bigoted to
his own gods, and so much the less inclined to be-
lieve any miraculous power in St. Paul. When, at
Troas, a young man named Eutychus, fell down from
a high window, while Paul was preaching, and was
taken up dead. Acts, 20: 9, could any enthusiasm,
either in Paul or the congregation there present, make
them believe, that by that apostle's falling upon him,
and embracing him, he was restored to life? Or could
he who was so restored contribute any thing to him-
self, by any power of his own imagination? When,
in the isle of Melita, where St. Paul was shipwreck-
ed, there came a viper and fastened on his hand, which
he shook off, and felt no harm, Acts, 28, was that an
effect of enthusiasm ? An enthusiast might perhaps
have been mad enough to hope for safety against the
bite of a viper without any remedy being applied to it ;
but would that hope have prevented his death ? Or were
the barbarous islanders, to whom this apostle was an
absolute strang-er, prepared by enthusiasm to expect
and believe that any miracle would be worked to pre-
serve him ? On the contrary, when they saw the
viper hang to his hand, they said among themselves,

66 tYTTELTON ON •, :68

"No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he
hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance sufFereth not tc
live." I will add no more instances : these are suffi-
cient to show that the miracles told of St. Paul can
no more be ascribed to enthusiasm than to imposture.

But moreover, the power of working miracles was
not confined to St. Paul ; it was also communicated
to the churches he planted in different parts of the
world. In many parts of his first epistle he tells the
Corinthians, 1 Cor. 12 : 4, 5, that they had among
them many miraculous graces and gifts, and gives
them directions for the more orderly use of them in
their assemblies. Now, I ask, whether all that he
said upon that head is to be ascribed to enthusiasm ?
If the Corinthians knew that they had among them
no such miraculous powers, they must have regarded
the author of that epistle as a man out of his senses,
instead of revering him as an apostle of God.

If, for instance, a Q,uaker should, in a meeting of
his own sect, tell all the persons assembled there,
that to some among them was given the gift of heal-
ing by the Spirit of God, to others the working of
other miracles, to others divers kinds of tongues;
they would undoubtedly account him a madman, be-
cause they pretend to no such gifts. If indeed they
were only told by him that they were inspired by the
Spirit of God in a certain ineffable manner, which
they alone could understand, but which did not dis-
cover itself bv any outward distinct operations or
signs, they might mistake the impulse of enthusiasm
for the inspiration of the Holy Ghost ; but they could
not believe, against the conviction of their own
minds thgit they spoke tongues they did not speak, or

169 CONVERSION OF PAUL. 67

healed distempers they did not heal, or worked other
miracles when they worked none. If it be said the
Corinthians might pretend to these powers, though
the Uuakers do not, I ask whether, in that preten-
sion, they were impostors, or only enthusiasts ? If
they were impostors, and St. Paul was also such,
how ridiculous was it for him to advise them, in an
epistle writ only to them, and for their own use, not
to value themselves too highly upon those gifts, to
pray for one rather than another, and prefer charity to
them all ! Do associates in fraud talk such a language
to one another ? But if we suppose their pretension
to all those gifts was an effect of enthusiasm, let us
consider how it was possible that he and they could
be so cheated by that enthusiasm, as to imagine they
had such powers when they had not.

Suppose that enthusiasm could make a man think
that he was able, by a word or a touch, to give sight
to the blind, motion to the lame, or life to the dead :
would that conceit of his make the blind see, the
lamj walk, or the dead revive? And if it did not,
how could he persist in such an opinion ; or, upon his
pers'^ting, escape being shut up for a madman? But
such a madness could not infect so many at once, as
St. Paul supposes at Corinth to have been endowed
with the gift of healing or any other miraculous pow-
ers. One of the miracles which they pretended to
was the speaking of languages they never had learn-
ed ; and St. Paul says, he possessed this gift more
than they all. 1 Cor. 14 ; 18. If this had been a de-
luoion of fancy, if they had spoke only gibberish, or
Uiimeaning sounds, it would soon have appeared,
"when they came to make use of it where it was ne-

15 Infidelity.

68 LYTTELTON ON [17C

cessary, viz. m the converting of those who under
stood not any language they naturally spoke. St.
Paul particularly, who traveled so far upon that de-
sign, and had such occasion to use it, must soon liave
discovered that this imaginary gift of the spirit was
no g ft at all, but a ridiculous instance of frenzy,
c-'"^icn had possessed both him and them. But, it
'hose he spoke to in divers tongues understood what
ie said, and were converted to Christ by that means,
low could it be a delusion? Of all the miracles re-
orded in Scripture, none are more clear Irom any
»ossible imputation of being the effect of an enthusi-
istic imagination than this : for how could any man
«.hink that he had it, who had it not: or, if he did
think so, not be undeceived when he came to put
his gift to the proof?

If, then, St. Paul and the church of Corinth were
not deceived, in ascribing to themselves this miracu-
lous power, but really had it, there is the strongest
reason to think that neither were they deceived in
the other powers to which they pretended, as the
same Spirit which gave them that equally, could and
irobably would give them the others to serve the
same holy ends for which that was given. And, by
consequence, St. Paul was no enthusiast in what he
wrote upon that head to the Corinthians, nor in other
similar instances where he ascribes to himself, or to
the churches he founded, any supernatural graces and
gifts. Indeed, they who would impute to imagina-
tion effects such as those which St. Paul imputes to
the power of God attending his mission, must ascribe
to imagination the same omnipotence which he as-
cribes to God.

1711 CONVERSION or PADL 69

III. Paul not decei-ved by the fraud of others.

Having thus, I flatter myself, satisfactorily shown
that St. Paul could not be an enthusiast, who, by the
force of an overheated imagination, imposed on him-
self, I am next to inquire whether he was deceived
by the fraud of others, and whether all that he said
of himself can be imputed to the povv^r '^^ that de-
ceit? But I need say little to show the absuraity of
this supposition. It was morally impossible for the
disciples of Christ to conceive such a thought, as
that of turning his persecutor into his apostle, and to
do this by a fraud, in the very instant of his greatest
fury against them and their Lord. But could they
have been so extravagant as to conceive such a
thought, it was physically impossible for them to exe-
cute it in the manner we find his conversion to have
been effected. Could they produce a light in the air,
which at mid-day was brighter than that of the sun ?
Could they make Saul hear words from out of that
light, Acts, 22 : 9, which were not heard by the rest
of the company ? Could they make him blind for three
days after that vision, and then make scales fall from
off his eyes, and restore him to his sight by a word?
Beyond dispute, no fraud could do these things; but
much less still could the fraud of others produce those
miracles, subsequent to his conversion, in which he
was not passive, but active; which he did himself,
and appeals to in his epistles as proofs of his divine
mission.

70 LYTTELTON OM [172

CONCLUSION

I shall then take it for granted, that he was not de-
ceived by the fraud of others, and that what he said
of himself can no more be imputed to the power of
that deceit, than to wilful imposture, or to enthusi-
asm : and then it fullows, that what he related to
have been the cause of his conversion, and to have
happened in consequence of it, did all really happen ;
and therefore the Christian religion is a divine re-
velation.

That this conclusion is fairly and undeniably drawn
from the premises, I think must be owned, unless some
probable cause can be assigned to account for those
facts so authentically related in the Acts of the Apos-
tles, and attested in his epistles by St. Paul himself,
other than any of those which I have considered ; and
this I am confident cannot be done. It must be there-
fore accounted for by the power of God. That God
should work miracles for the establishment of a most
holy religion, which from the insuperable difficulties
that stood in the way of it, could not have established
itself without such assistance, is no way repugnant to
human reason : but that without any miracle such
things should have happened, as no adequate natural
causes can be assigned for, is what human reason can-
not believe.

To impute them to magic, or the power of demons,
(which was the resource of the heathens and Jews
against the notoriety of the miracles performed by
Christ and his disciples,) is by no means agreeable to
the notions of those who, in this age, disbcxieve Chris-

173j CONVERSION OF PAUL. 71

tianity. It will therefore be needless to show the weak-
ness of that supposition : but that supposition itself is
no inconsidjerable argument of the truth of the facts.
Next to the apostles and evangelists, the strongest
witnesses of the undeniable force of that truth are
Celsus and Julian, and other ancient opponents of the
Christian religion, who were obliged to solve what
they could not contradict, by such an irrational and
absurd imagination.

The dispute was not then between faith and reason^
but between religion and superstition. Superstition
ascribed to cabalistical names, or magical secrets, such
operations as carried along with them evident marks
of the divine power: religion ascribed them to God,
and reason declared itself on that side of the question.
Upon what grounds then can we now overturn that
decision? Upon what grounds can we reject the un-
questionable testimony given by St. Paul, that he was
called by God to be a disciple and apostle of Christ?
It has been shown, that we cannot impute it either to
enthusiasm or fraud : how shall we then resist the
conviction of such a proof? Does the doctrine he
T)reached contain any precepts against the law of mo-
bility, that natural law written by God in the hearts
of mankind ? If it did, I confess that none of the argu-
ments I have made use of could prove such a doctrine
to come from him. But this is so far from being the
case, that even those who reject Christianity as a di-
vine revelation, acknowledge the morals delivered by
Christ and by his apostles to be worthy of God. Is it
then on account of the mysteries in the Gospel that
the facts are denied, though supported by evidence
waich in L.l other cases would be allc'ved to contain
15*

72 LYTTELTON ON [174

the clearest conviction, and cannot in this be rejected
without reducing the mind to a state of absolute scep-
ticism, and overturning those rules by v^rhich we juu'ge
of all evidence, and of the truth or credibility of all
other facts ? But this is plainly to give up the use of
our understanding where we are able to use it most
properly, in order to apply it to things of which it is
not a competent judge. The motives and reasons upon
which divine wisdom may think proper to act, as well
as the manner in which it acts, must often lie out of
the reach of our understanding ; but the motives and
reasons of human actions, and the manner in which
they are performed, are all in the sphere of human
knowledge, and upon them we may judge, with a well
grounded confidence, when they are fairly proposed
to our consideration.

It is incomparably more probable that a revelation
from God, concerning the ways of his providence,
should contain in it matters above the capacity of our
minds to comprehend, than that St. Paul, or indeed
any of the other apostles, should have acted, as we
know that they did, upon any other foundations than
certain knowledge of Christ's being risen from the
dead ; or should have succeeded in the work they un-
dertook, without the aid of miraculous powers. To
the former of these propositions I may give my assent
without any direct opposition of reason to my faith;
but in admitting the latter, I must believe against all
those probabilities that are the rational grounds of
assent.

Nor do they who reject the Christian religion be-
cause of the difficulties which occur in its mysteries,
consider how far that objection will go against other

I7dJ CONVERSION OP PAUL. 73

systems, DOth of religion and of philosophy, which they
themselves profess to admit. There are in deism it-
self, the most simple of all religious opinions, several
difficulties, for which human reason can but ill ac-
count ; which may therefore be not improperly styled
articles of faith. Such is the origin of evil under the
government of an all-good and all-powerful God ; a
question so hard, that the inability of solving it in a
satisfactory manner to their apprehensions, has driven
some of the greatest philosophers into the monstrous
and senseless opinions of manicheism and atheism.
Such is the reconciling the prescience of God with
the free-will of man, which after much thought on the
subject, Mr. Locke fairly confesses he could not do,*
though he acknowledged both ; and what Mr. Locke
could not do, in reasoning upon subjects of a meta-
physical nature, I am apt to think few men, if any,
can hope to perform.

Such is also the creation of the world at any sup-
posed time, or the eterval production of it from God ;
it being almost equally hard, according to mere philo-
sophical notions, either to admit that the goodness of
God could remain unexerted through all eternity be-
fore the time of such a creation, let it be set back ever
so far, or to conceive an eternal production, which
words so applied, are inconsistent and contradictory
terms; the solution commonly given by a comparison
!o the emanation of light from the sun not being ade-
quate to it, or just ; for light is a quality inherent ia
tire, emanating from it ; whereas matter is not a quali'
ty inherent in or emanating from the divine essence,

• See his letter to Mr. Molyoeux, p. 5G9, vol. 3.

74 LYTTELTON ON [175

but of a different substance and nature ; and if not in
dependent and self- existing^ must have been created,
by a mere act of the divine will ; and, if created, then
not eternal, the idea of creation implying a time whf.n
the sid)stance created did not exist. But if to gei rid
of this difficulty, we have recourse, as many of the an-
cient philosophers had, to the independent existence
of matter^ then we must admit two self -existing prin-
ciples, which is quite inconsistent with genuine the-
ism or natural reason. Nay, could that be admitted, ii
would not clear up the doubt, unless we suppose not
only the eternal existence of matter, independent o\
God, but that it was from eternity in the order and
beauty we see it in now, without any agency of the
divine power; otherwise the same difficulty will al-
ways occur, why it was not before put into that order
and state of perfection ; or how the goodntss of God
could so long remain in a state of inaction, unexerted
and unemployed. For were the time of such an ex-
ertion of it put back ever so far, if, instead of five or
six thousand years, we were to suppose millions of
millions of ages to have passed since the world* was
reduced out cf a chaos, to an harmonious and regular
form, still a whole eternity must have preceded that
date, during which the divine attributes did not exert
themselves in that beneficent work, so suitable to
them, that the conjectures of human reason can find
no cause for its being delayed.

• By the world f do not mean this earth alone, but the whole
material universe, with all its inhabitants. Even created spirits
fa'.I under the same reasoning; for they must also have had a
/^^[inning, and before that beginning an eternity must have
i^k'^cef'.ed.

177J CONVERSION OP PAUL. ^ft

But because of these difficulties cr any other that
may occur in tht system of deism, no wise muu will
deny the being of God, or his infinite wisdom, good-
ness, and power, which are proved by such evidence
as carries the clearest and strongest conviction, and
cannot be refused without involving the mind in far
greater difficulties, even in downright absurdities and
impossibilities. The only part, therefore, that can be
taken, is to account in the best manner that our weak
reason is able to do, for such seeming objections ; and
where that fails, to acknowledge its weakness, and ac
quiesce under the certainty that our very imperfec
knowledge or judgment cannot be the measure of the
divine wisdom, or the universal standard of truth. So
likev/ise it is with respect to the Christian religion.
Some difficulties occur in that revelation which human
reason can hardly clear ; but as the truth of it stands
upon evidence so strong and convincing that it cannot
be denied without much greater difficulties than those
that attend the belief of it, as I have before endeavor-
ed to prove, we ought not to reject it upon such objec-
tions, however mortifying they may be to our pride.
That indeed would have all things made plain to r.s,
but God has thought proper to proportion our know-
ledge to our wants, not our pride. All that concerns
our duty is clear ; and as to other points, either of na-
tural or revealed religion, if he has left some obscuri-
ties in them, is that any reasonable cause of complaint ?
Not to rejoice in the benefit of what he has graciously
allowed us to know, from a presumptuous disgust at
our incapacity of knowing more, is as absurd as it
would be to refuse to walk because we cannot fiy.

From the arrogant ignorance of metaphysical rea-

76 L^fTELTON OK [178

sonmgs, aiming at matters above our knowledge, arose
all the speculative impiety, and many of the worst
superstitions of the old heathen world, before the Gos-
pel was preached to bring men back again to the
primitive faith ; and from the same source have since
flowed some of the greatest corruptions of the evan-
gelical truth, and the most inveterate prejudices
against it ; an effect just as natural as for our eye? to
grow weak, and even blind, by being strained to look
at objects too distant, or not made for them to see.

Are then our inleneciuai faculties of no use in re-
ligion ? Yes, undoubtedly, of the most necessary use
when rightly employed. The proper employment oj
ihem is to distinguish its genuine doctrines from othi.;*
erroneously or corruptly ascribed to it ; to consider the
importance and purport of them, with the connection
they bear to one another ; but, first of all, to examine,
with the strictest attention, the evidence by which le-
ligion is proved, internal as well as externa!. If the
external evidence be convincingly strong, and there is
no internal proof of its falsehood, but much to support
and confirm its truth, then surely no difficulties ought
to previ^nt our giving a full assent and belief to it. It
is our duty, indeed, to endeavor to find the best solu-
tions we can to them ; but where no satisfactory ones
are to be found, it is no less our duty to acquiesce with
Jiumility, and believe that to be right which we know
is above us, and belonging to a wisdom superior to ours

Nor let it be said that this will be an argument for
admitting all doctrines, however absurd, that may have
been grafted upon the Christian faith : those which ca»
plainly be proved not to belong to it, fall not under th«
F^soning I l»ave laid down ; (and certainly none do

179] CONVEHa'IOW Of PAUL. 77

b'.xong to it which contradict either our clear^ intui-
tive knowledge, or the evident principles and dictates
of reason.) I speak only of difficulties which attend
the belief of the Gospel in some of its pure and es-
sential doctrines, plainly and evidently delivered there,
which being made known to us by a revelation sup-
ported by proofs that our reason ought to admit, and
not being such things as it can certainly know to be
false, must be received by it as objects of faith, though
they are such as it could not have discovered by any
natural means, and such as are difficult to be conceiv-
ed, or satisfactorily explained by its limited powers-
If the glorious light of the Gospel be sometimes over-
cast with clouds of doubt, so is the light of our reason
too. But shall we deprive ourselves of the advanta-
'^es of either, because those clouds cannot, perhaps, be
entirely removed while we remain in this mortal life ?
Shall we obstinately and frowardly shut our eyes
against that day-spring from on high that has visit-
ed us, because we are not, as yet, able to bear the full
blaze of his beams 1 Indeed, not even in heaven it-
self, not in the highest state of perfection to whici a
finite being can ever attain, will all the counsels of
Providence, all the height and the depth of the infinite
wisdom of God, be ever disclosed or understood. Faith
even then will be necessary, and there will be my sic-
teries which cannot be penetrated by the most exalted
archangel, and truths which cannot be known by him
otherwise than from revelation, or believed upon any
other ground of assent than a submissive confidence in
the divine wisdom. What then, shall man presume
that his weak and narrow understanding is sufficient
♦o guide him into all truth, without any need of reve-

78 CONVERSION or f AIL. [.liH)

lation or faith ? Shall he complain that the ways of
God are not like his ways, and past his finding out 7
True philosophy, as well as true Christianity, would
teach us a wiser and modester part. It would teach
us to be content within those bounds which God has
assigned to us, casting down imaginations, and every
high thing that ewalteth itself against the knowledge
of God, and bringing into captivity every thought
to the obedience of Christ 2 Cor. 10 : 5.

TRS fasa

REPLY TO GIBBON}

CR, AN

APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY ;

LETTEUS TO EDWARD GIBBON, Era.

Author of the History ot the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
WITH AW APPEAI. TO INFIDSIiS.

BY R. WATSON, D. D. F. R. S.

Bishop of Landaff, and Professor of Divijiity in the University of
Cambridge.

1^ Infidelity.

<^ ^<S> <g^Sg|]&#^a

LETTER I.

Sir: — It would give me much uneasiness to be re-
m.te J an enemy to free inquiry in religious matters, or
as capable of being animated into any degree of per-
sonal malevolence against those who differ from me in
opinion. On the contrary, I look upon the right of
private judgment, in every concern respecting God and
ourselves, as superior to the control of human autho-
rity ; and have ever regarded free disquisition as the
best means of illustrating the doctrine and establish-
ing the truth of Christianity. Let the followers of
Mahomed, and the zealots of the church of Rome,
support their several religious systems by damping
every effort of the human intellect to pry into the
foundations of their faith ; but never can it become a
Christian to be afraid of being asked "a reason of the
hope that is in him ;" nor a Protestant to be studious
of enveloping his religion in mystery and ignorance ;
or to abandon that moderation by which she permits
every mdividual et sentire qnce velit, et quce sentiat
dicer e : [both to think what he will, and to speak what
he thinks.]

It is not, sir, without some reluctance, that, under
the influence of these opinions, I have prtivailed upon
myself to address these letters to you ; and you will

2 Watson's [184

attribute to the same motive my not having given you
this trouble sooner. I had, moreover, an expectation
that the task would have been undertaken by some
person capable of doing greater justice to the subject,
and more worthy of your attention. Perceiving, how-
ever, that the two last chapters, the fifteenth in parti-
cular, of your very laborious and classical history of
the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire^ had
made upon many an impression not at all advantageous
to Christianity ; and that the silence of others, of the
clergy especially, began to be looked upon as an ac-
quiescence in what you had therein advanced, I have
thought it my duty, with the utmost respect and good
will towards you, to take the liberty of suggesting to
your consideration a few remarks upon some of the
passages which have been esteemed (whether you
meant that they should be so esteemed or not) as pow-
erfully militating against that revelation, which still is
to many, what it formerly was " to the Greeks — foolish-
ness ;" but which we deem to be true, to "be the pow-
er of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."
To the inquiry, by what means the Christian faith
obtained so remarkable a victory over the established
religions of the earth, you rightly answer, by the evi-
dence of the doctrine itself, and the ruling providence
of its author. But, afterwards, in assigning to this as-
tonishing event jive secondary causes, derived from
the passions of the human heart, and the general cir-
cumstances of mankind, you seem to some to have
insinuated that Christianity, like other impostures,
might lave made its way in the world, though its ori-
gin hal keen as human as the means by which you
suppose it was spread. It is no wish or intention of

185] REPLY TO GIBBON. 3

mine to fasten the odium of this insinuation upon you :
I shall simply endeavor to show that the causes you
produce, are either inadequate to the attainment of the
end proposed, or that their efficiency, great as you ima-
gine it, was derived from other principles than those
you have thought proper to mention.

Your first cause is, "the inflexible, and, if you may
use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Chris-
tians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but
purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, in-
stead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from em-
bracing the law of Moses." Yes, sir, we are agreed
that the zeal of the Christians was inflexible ; " neither
death, nor life, nor principalities, nor powers, nor
things present, nor things to come," could bend it into
a separation " from the love of God which was in
Christ Jesus their Lord." It was an inflexible obsti-
nacy, in not blaspheming the name of Christ, which
every where exposed them to persecution ; and which
even your amiable and philosophic Pliny thought pro-
per, for want of other crimes, to punish with death in
the Christians of his province. We are agreed, too,
that the zeal of the Christians was intolerant ; for it
denounced " tribulation and anguish upon every soul
of man that did evil, of the Jew first, and also of the
Gentile :" it would not tolerate in Christian worship
those who supplicated the image of Cajsar, who bow-
ed down at the altars of Paganism, who mixed with
the votaries of Venus, or wallowed in the filth of
Bacchanalian festivals.

But, though we are thus far agreed with respect to
the inflexibility and intolerance of Christian zeal, yet,
as to the ^.i-'nciple from which it was derived, we are
16*

4 Watson's [185

toto ccelo divided in opinion. You deduce it from the
Jewish religion ; I would refer ii to a more adequate
and d more obvious source — a full persuasion of the
truth of Christianity. What ! think you that it was a
zeal derived from the unsocial spirit of Judaism, which
inspired Peter with courage to upbraid the whole peo-
ple of the Jews, in the very capital of Judea, iVith
having " delivered up Jesus, with having denied him
in the presence of Pilate, with having desired a mur-
derer to be granted them in his stead, with having
killed the Prince of Life ?" AVas it from this principle
that the same apostle, in conjunction with John, when
summoned, not before the dregs of the people, (whose
judgment they might have been supposed capable of
misleading, and whose resentment they might have
despised,) but before the rulers and the elders, and the
scribes, the dread tribunal of the Jewish nation, and
commanded by them to teach no more in tJie name of
Jesus, boldly answered, " that they could not but speak
the things which they had seen and heard ?" They
had " seen Avith their eyes, they had handled with
their hands the word of life ;" and no human jurisdic-
tion could deter them from being faithful witnesses of
what they had seen and heard. Here, then, you may
perceive the genuine and undoubted origin of that zeal
which you ascribe to what appears to me a very insuf-
ficient cause ; and which the Jewish rulers were so far
from considering as the ordinary effect of their reli-
gion, that they were exceedingly at a loss how to ac-
count for it. " Now, when they saw the boldness of
Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearn-
ed and ignorant men, they marveled." The apostles,
heedless of consequences, and regardless of every

X87] REPLY TO GIBBON. 5

thing but truth, openly every where professed them-
selves witnesses of the resurrection of Christ; and
Avith a confidence which could proceed from nothing
but conviction, and which pricked the Jews to the
heart, bade " the house of Israel know assuredly, that
God had made that same Jesus, whom they had cruci-
fied, both Lord and Christ."

I mean not to produce these instances of apostolic
zeal as direct proofs of the truth of Christianity ; for
every religion, nay, every absurd sect of every reli-
gion, has had its zealots, who have not scrapled to
mamtain their principles at the expense of their lives;
and we ought no more to infer the truth of Christi-
anity from the mere zeal of its propagators, than the
truth of Mahomedanism from that of a Turk. When
a man suffers himself to be covered with infamy, pil-
laged of his property, and dragged at last to the block
or the stake, rather than give up his opinion, the pro-
per inference is, not that his opinion is true, but that
he believes it to be true ; and a question of serious
discussion immediately presents itself— upon what
foundation has he built his belief? This is often an
intricate inquiry, including in it a vast compass of
human learning. A Brahmin or a Mandarin, who
should observe a missionary attesting the truth of
Christianity with his blood, would, notwithstanding,
have a right to ask many questions, before it could be
expected that he should give an assent to our faith.
In the case, indeed, of the apostles, the inquiry would
be much less perplexed, since it would briefly resolve
itself into this — whether they were credible reporters
of facts which they themselves professed to have
seen — and it would be an easv matter to show, that

6 Watson's [188

their zeal in attesting what they were certainly com-
petent to judge of, could not proceed from any alluring
prospect of worldly interest or ambition, or from any
other probable motive than a love of truth.

But the credibility of the apostles' testimony, or
their competency to judge of the facts which they re-
late, is noAv to be examined ; the question before us
simply relates to the principle by which their zeal was
excited; and it is a matter of real astonishment to me,
that any one conversant with the history of the first
propagation of Christianity, acquainted with the op-
position it every where met with from the people oi
the Jews, and aware of the repugnancy which must
ever subsist between its tenets and those of Judaism,
should ever think of deriving the zeal of the primitive
Christians from the Jewish religion.

Both Jew and Christian, mdeed, believed in one
God, and abominated idolatry ; but this detestation
of idolatry, had it been unaccompanied with the
belief of the resurrection of Christ, would probably
have been just as inefficacious in exciting the zeal
of the Christian to undertake the conversion of the
Gentile world, as it had for ages been in exciting that
of the Jew. But supposing, what 1 think you have
not proved, and what I am certain cannot be admitted
without proof, that a zeal derived from the Jewish re-
ligion inspired the first Christians with fortitude to
oppose themselves to the institutions of Paganism;
what was it that encouraged them to attempt the con-
version of their own countrymen ? Amongst the Jews
they met with no superstitious observances of idola-
trous rites ; and therefore amongst them could have
no opportunity of "declaring and confirming their

189J REPLY TO GIBBON. 7

zealous opposition to Polytheism, or of fortifying, by
frequent protestations, their attachment to the C'hris-
tian faith." Here, then, at least, the cause you have
assigned for Christian zeal ceases to operate ; and we
must look out for some other principle than a zeal
against idolatry, or we shall never be able satisfac-
torily to explain the ardor with which the apostles
pressed the disciples of Moses to become the disciples
of Christ.

Again : Does a determined opposition to, and an
open abhorrence of, even the minutest part of an old
established religion, appear to you to be the most like-
ly method of conciliating to another faith those who
profess it? The Christians, you contend, could nei-
ther mix with the heathens in their convivial enter-
tainments, nor partake with them in the celebration
of their solemn festivals ; they could neither associate
with them in their hymeneal nor funeral rites ; they
could not cultivate their arts, or be spectators of their
shows : in short, in order to escape the rites of Poly-
theism, they were, in your opinion, obliged to renounce
the commerce of mankind, and all the offices and
amusements of life. Now, how such an extravagant
and intemperate zeal, as you here describe, can, hu-
manly speaking, be considered as one of the chief
causes of the quick propagation of Christianity, in op-
position to all the established powers of Paganism, is a
circumstance I can by no means comprehend. The
Jesuit missionaries, whose human prudence no one
will question, were quite of a contrary way of think-
ing ; and brought a deserved censure upon themselves
for not scrupling to propagate the faith of Christ by
indulging to their Pagan converts a frequent use of

8 Watson's [190

idolatrous ceremonies. Upon the whole it appears to
me, that the Christians were in nowise indebted to
the Jewish religion for the zeal Avith which they pro-
pagated the Gospel amongst Jews as well as Gen-
tiles ; and that such a zeal as you describe, let its
principles be what you plea5e, could never have been
devised by any human understanding as a probable
means of promoting the progress of a reformation in
religion, much less could it have been thought of, or
adopted, by a few ignorant and unconnected men.

In expatiating upon this subject you have taken an
opportunity of remarking, that " the contemporaries
of Moses and Joshua had beheld with careless indif-
ference the most amazing miracles — and that, in con-
tradiction to every known principle of the human
mind, that singular people (the Jews) seem to have
yielded a stronger and more ready assent to the tradi-
tions of their remote ancestors, than to the evidence
of their own senses." This observation bears hard
upon the veracity of the Jewish Scriptures ; and, was
it true, would force us either to reject them, or to ad-
mit a position as extraordinary as a miracle itself —
that the testimony of others produced in the human
mind a stronger degree of conviction, concerning a
matter of fact, than the testimony of the senses them-
selves. It happens, however, in the present case, that
we are under no necessity of either rejecting the Jew-
ish Scriptures, or of admitting such an absurd posi-
tion ; for the fact is not true, that the contemporaries
of Moses and Joshua beheld with careless indifference
the miracles related in the Bible to have been perform-
ed in their favor. That these miracles were not suffi-
cient to awe the Israelites into a uniform obedience to

191] REPLY TO GIBBON. 9

the Theocracy, cannot be denied ; but whatever rea-
sons may be thought best adapted to account for the
propensity of the Jews to idolatry, and their frequent
defection from the worship of the one true God, a
" stubborn incredulity " cannot be admitted as one of
them.

To men, indeed, whose understandings have been
enlightened by the Christian revelation, and enlarged
by all the aids of human learning ; who are under no
temptations to idolatry from without, and whose rea-
son from within would revolt at the idea of worship-
ing the infinite Author of the universe under any cre-
ated symbol ; to men who are compelled, by the utmost
exertion of their reason, to admit, as an irrefragable
truth, what puzzles the first principles of all reason-
ing, the eternal existence of an uncaused being, and
who are conscious that they cannot give a full account
of any one phenomenon in nature, from the rotation of
the great orbs of the universe to the germination of a
blade of grass, without having recourse to him as the
primary incomprehensible cause of it ; and who, from
seeing him every where, have, by a strange fatality,
(converting an excess of evidence into a principle of
disbelief,) at times doubted concerning his existence
any where, and made the very universe their God : to
men of such a stamp, it appears almost an incredible
thing, that any human being, which had seen the order
of nature interrupted, or the uniformity of its course
suspended, though but for a moment, should ever af-
terwards lose the impression of reverential awe which
they apprehend would have been excited in their
minds. But whatever efiect the visible interposition
of the Deity might have in removing the scepticism;

10 Watson's ( 192

or confirming the faith, of a few philosophers, it is
with me a very great doubt, whether the people in
general of our days would be more strongly afl'ected
by it than they appear to have been in the days oi
Moses.

Was any people under heaven to escape the certam
destruction impending over them, from the close pur-
suit of an enraged and irresistible enemy, by seeing
the waters of the ocean " becoming a wall to them on
their right hand and on their left," they would, I ap-
prehend, be agitated by the very same passions we
are told the Israelites were, when they saw the sea
returning to his strength, and swallowing up the host
of Pharaoh; they "would fear the Lord, they would
believe the Lord," and they would express their faith
and their fear by praising the Lord : they would not
behold such a great work with " careless indifference,"
but with astonishment and terror; nor would you be
able to detect the slightest vestige of " stubborn incre-
dulity" in their song of gratitude. No length of time
would be able to blot from their minds the memory of
such a transaction, or induce a doubt concerning its
author; though future hunger and thirst might make
them call out for water and bread with a desponding
and rebellious importunity.

But it was not at the Red Sea only that the Israelites
regarded, with something more than a " careless in-
difference," the amazing miracles which God had
wrought; for, when the law was declared to them
from Mount Sinai, " all the people saw the thunder-
ings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the tempest,
and the mountain smoking ; and when the people saw
it, they removed and stood afar off: and they said unto

193] REPLY TO GIBBON. 11

Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear ; but let
not God speak with us, lest we die." This again, sir,
is the Scripture account of the language of the con-
temporaries of Moses and Joshua ; and I leave it to
you to consider whether this is the language of '' stub-
Dorn incredulity and careless indifference."

We are told, in Scripture, too, that whilst any of the
"contemporaries" of Moses and Joshua were alive,
the whole people served the Lord ; the impression
which a sight of the miracles had made was never
effaced ; nor the obedience, which might have been
expected as a natural consequence, refused, till Moses
and Joshua, and all their contemporaries, were gather-
ed unto their fathers ; till, " another generation after
them aro-ie, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the
works which he had done for Israel." But " the peo-
ple served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the
days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen
all the great works of the Lord that he did for Israel."

I am far from thinking you, sir. unacquainted with
Scripture, or desirous of sinking the weight of its tes-
timony ; but as the words of the history, from which
you must have derived your observation, will not sup-
port you in imputing "careless indifference" to the
contemporaries of Moses, or "stubborn incredulity"
to the forefathers of the Jews, I know not what can
have induced you to pass so severe a censure upon
them, except that you look upon a lapse into idolatry
as a proof of infidelity. In answer to this, I would re-
mark, that with equal soundness of argument we ought
to infer, that every one who transgresses a religion,
disbelieves it ; and that every individual, who in any
community incurs civil pains and penalties, is a dis-

]^7 Infidelity.

12 Watson's [194

believer of the existence of the authority by Avhich
they are inflicted. The sanctions of the Mosaic law
were, in your opinion, terminated within the narrow
limits of this life ; in that particular, then, they must
have resembled the sanctions of all other civil laws :
" transgress and die," is the language of every one of
them, as well as that of Moses ; and I know not what
reason we have to expect that the Jews, who were
animated by the same hopes of temporal rewards, im-
pelled by the same fears of temporal punishments,
with the rest of mankind, should have been so singu-
lar in their conduct, as never to have listened to the
clamors of passion before the still voice of reason, as
never to have preferred a present gratification of sense,
in the lewd celebration of idolatrous riles, before the
rigid observance of irksome ceremonies.

Before I release you from the trouble of this letter
I cannot help observing, that I could have wished you
had furnished your reader with Limborch's answers
to the objections of the Jew Orobio, concerning the per-
petual obligation of the law of Moses. You have,
indeed, mentioned Limborch with respect, in a short
note ; but, though you have studiously put into the
mouths of the Judaising Christians i?n the apostolic
days, and with great strength inserted into your text
whatever has been said by Orobio, or others, against
Christianity, trom the supposed perpetuity of the Mo-
saic dispensation, yet you have not favored us with
any one of the numerous replies which have been made
to these seemingly strong objections. You are pleased,
it is true, to say, " that the industry of our learned di-
vines has abundantly explained the ambiguous lan-
guage of the Old Testament, and the ambiguous con-

195J REPLY TO GIBBON. 13

duct of the apostolic teachers." It requires, sir, no
learned industry to explain what is so obvious and so
express, that he who runs may read it. The lan-
guage of the Old Testament is this : " Behold, the
days come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new co-
venant with the house of Israel, and with the house
of Judah ; not according to the covenant that I made
with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." This,
methmks, is a clear and solemn declaration ; there is
no ambiguity at all in it ; that the covenant with Mo-
ses was not to be perpetual, but was, in some future
time, to give way to a "new covenant." I will not
detain you with an explanation of what Moses him-
self has said upon this subject; but you may try, if
you please, whether you can apply the following de-
claration, which Moses made to the Jews, to any pro-
phet, or succession of prophets, with the same pro-
priety that you can to Jesus Christ : " The Lord thy
God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst
of thee, of thy brethren, like unto thee : unto him shall
ye hearken." If you think this ambiguous or obscure,
I answer, that it is not a history, but a prophecy ; and,
as such, unavoidably liable to some degree of obscu-
rity, till interpreted by the event.

Nor was the conduct of the apostles more ambigu-
ous than the language of the Old Testament ; they
did not, indeed, at first comprehend the whole of the
nature of the new dispensation ; and when they did
understand it better, they did not think proper, upon
every occasion, to use their Christian liberty ; but, with
true Christian charity, accommodated themselves in
matters of indifference to the prejudices of their weaker

14 Watson's [19*^

brethren. But he who changes his conduct with 'a
change of sentiments, proceeding from an mcrease of
knowledge, is not ambiguous in his conduct; nor
should he be accused of a culpable duplicity, who, in
a matter of the last importance, endeavors to conciliate
the good-will of all, by conforming in a few innocent
observances to the particular persuasions of differ-
ent men.

One remark more, and I have done. In your account
of ihe Gnostics, you have given us a very minute ca-
talogue of the objections which they made to the au-
thority of Moses, from his account of the creation, of
the patriarchs, of the law, and of the attributes of the
Deity. I have not leisure to examine whether the
Gnostics of former ages really made all the objections
you have mentioned ; I take it for granted, upon your
authority, that they did : but I am certain, if they did,
that the Gnostics of modern times have no reason to
be puffed up with their knowledge, or to be held in ad-
miration as men of subtle penetration or refined erudi-
tion ; they are all miserable copiers of their brethren
of antiquity ; and neither Morgan, nor Tindal, norBo-
lingbroke, nor Voltaire, have been able to produce
scarce a single new objection. You think that the Fa-
thers have not properly answered the Gnostics. I make
no question, sir, you are able to answer them to your
own satisfaction, and informed of every thing that has
been said by our " industrious divines" upon the sub-
ject ; and we should have been glad if it had fallen in
with your plan to have administered, together with the
poison, its antidote. But since that is not the case, lest
its malignity should spread too far, I must just men
tion it to my younger readers, that Leland, and others^

197J REPLY TO GIBBON. 15

in their replies to the modern deists, have given very
full, and, as many learned men apprehend, very satis-
factory answers to every one of the objections which
you have derived from the Gnostic heresy. I am, &c.

LETTER II.

Sir : — " The doctrine of a future life, improved by
every additional circumstance which could give weight
and efficacy to that important truth," is the second of
the causes to which you attribute the quick increase of
Christianity. Now, if we impartially consider the cir-
cumstances of the persons to whom the doctrine, not
simply of a future life, but of a future life accompa-
nied with punishments as well as rewards; not only
of the immortality of the soul, but of the immortality
of the soul accompanied with that of the resurrection,
was delivered, I cannot be of opinion that, abstracted
from the supernatural testimony by which it was en-
forced, it could have met with any very extensive re-
ception amongst them.

It was not that kind of future life which they ex-
pected ; it did not hold out to them the punishments of
the infernal regions as amies fahulas. [Old wives'
fables.] To the question. Quid si post mortem ma-
neant animi 7 [What if souls exist after death ?] they
would not answer with Cicero and the philosophers,
Beatos esse concedo ; [They are happy;] because,
there was a great probability that it might be quite
otherwise with them. I am not to learn that there are
passages to be picked up in the writings of the an-
cients, which might be produced as proofs of their
expecting a future state of punishment for the flagi-
17*

16 Watson's [198

tious ; but this opinion was worn out of credit before
the time of our Savior: the whole disputation in the
first book of the Tusculan Q,uestions goes upon the
other supposition. Nor was the absurdity of the doc-
tri/ie of future punishments confined to the writings
of the philosophers, or the circles of the learned and
polite ; for Cicero, to mention no others, makes no se-
cret of it in his public pleadings before the people at
large. You. yourself, sir, have referred to his oration
for Cluentius. In this oration, you may remember, he
makes great mention of a very abandoned fellow who
had forged, I know not how many wills, murdered, I
know not how many wives, and perpetrated a thousand
other villanies ; yet, even to this profligate, by name
Oppianicus, he is persuaded that death was not the
occasion of any evil. Hence, I think, we may con-
clude, that such of the Romans as were not wholly
infected with the annihilating notions of Epicurus,
but entertained (whether from remote tradition or en-
lightened argumentation) hopes of a future life, had
no manner of expectation of such a life as included in
it the severity of punishment denounced in the Chris-
tian scheme against the wicked.

Nor was it that kind of future life which they wish-
ed : they would have been glad enough of an Elysium
which could have admitted into it men who had spent
this life in ihe perpetration of every vice which can
debase and pollute the human heart. To abandon
every seducing gratification of sense, to pluck up every
latent root of ambition, to subdue every impulse oC
revenge, to divest themselves of every inveterate habit
in which their glory and their pleasure consisted : to
do all this, and more, before they could look up to the

199J REPLY TO GIBBON. 17

doctrine of a future life without terror and amazement,
was not, one would think, an easy undertaking ; nor
was it likely, that many would forsake the religious
institutions of their ancestors, set at naught the gods
under whose auspices the capitol had been founded,
and Rome made mistress of the world ; and suffer
themselves to be persuaded into the belief of a tenet
the very mention of which made Felix tremble, by
any thing less than a full conviction of the supernatu-
ral authority of those who taught it.

The several schools of Gentile philosophy had dis-
cussed, with no small subtlety, every argument which
reason could suggest, for and against the immortality
of the soul; and those uncertain glimmerings of the
light of nature would have prepared the minds of the
learned for the reception of the full illustration of this
subject by the Gospel, had not the resurrection been
a part of the doctrine therein advanced. But that this
corporeal frame, which is hourly mouldering away,
and resolved at last into the undistinguished mass of
elements from which it was first derived, should ever
be " clothed with immortality ; that this corruptible
should ever put on incorruption," is a truth so far re-
moved from the apprehension of philosophical re-
search, so dissonant from the common conceptions of
mankind, that amongst all ranks and persuasions of
men it was esteemed an impossible thing. At Athens,
the philosophers had listened with patience to St,
Paul, whilst they conceived him but a " setter forth of
strange gods ;" but as soon as they comprehended,
that by the a-vAa-ra/rtg he meant the resurrection, they
turned from him with contempt. It was principally
the insisting upon the same topic which made Festus

18 Watson's [200

think "that much learning had made him mad." And
the questions, " How are the dead raised up ?" and,
"With Avhat body do they come?" seem, by Paul's
solicitude to answer them with fullness and precision,
to have been not unfrcquenlly proposed to him by
those who were desirous of becoming Christians.

The doctrine of a future life, then, as promulged in
ihe Gospel, being neither agreeable to the expecta-
cions, nor corresponding with the wishes, nor confor-
mable to the reason of the Gentiles, I can discover no
motive (setting aside the true one, the divine power
of its first preachers.) which could induce them to re-
ceive it ; and, in consequence of their belief, to con-
form their loose morals to the rigid standard of Gospel
purity, upon the mere authority of a few contempti-
ble fishermen of Judea. And even you, yourself, sir,
seem to have changed your opinion concerning the
eflEicacy of the expectation of a future life in convert-
ing the heathen, when you observe in the following
chapter, that " the Pagan multitude, reserving their
gratitude for temporal benefits alone, rejected the in-
estimable present of life and immortality Avhich was
offered to mankind by Jesus of Nazareth."

Montesquieu is of opinion that it will ever be im-
possible for Christianity to establish itself in China
and the East, from the circumstance that it prohibits
a plurality of wives. How then could it have been
possible for it to have pervaded the voluptuous capi-
tal, and traversed the utmost limits of the empire of
Rome, by the feeble efforts of human industry or hu-
man knavery?

But the Gentiles, you are of opinion, were converted
by their fears ; and you reckon the doctrine of Christ's

201] REPLY TO GIBSON. 19

speedy appearance, of the millennium, and of the ge-
neral conflagration, amongst those additional circum-
stances which gave weight to that concerning a future
state. Before I proceed to the examination of the
efficiency of these several circumstances in alarming
the apprehensions of the Gentiles, what if I should
grant your position? Still the main question recurs.
From what source did they derive the fears which
converted them? Not surely from the mere human
labors of men who were every where spoken against,
made a spectacle of, and considered as the filth of the
world, and the olfscouring of all things ; not surely
from the human powers of him, who professed him-
self "rude in speech, in bodily presence contempti-
ble," and a despiser of "the excellency of speech, and
u^e enticing words of man's wisdom." No, such
wretched instruments were but ill fitted to inspire the
haughty and the learned Romans with any other pas
sions than those of pity or contempt.

Now, sir, if you please, we will consider that uni-
versal expectation of the approaching end of the
world, which, you think, had such great influence in
converting tne Pagans to the profession of Christiani-
ty. The near approch, you say, of this wonderful
event had been predicted by the apostles, " though
the revolution of seventeen centuries has instructed
us not to press too closely the mysterious language ot
prophecy and revelation." That this opinion, even ia
the times of the aportles, had made its way into the
Christian church, I readily admit ; but that the apostles
over either predicted this event to others, or cherished
the expectation of it in themselves, does not seeni
probable to me. As this is a point of some difficulty

20 Watson's [202

and importance, you wil\ suffer me to explain it at
some length.

It must be owned that there are several passages
in the writings of the apostles which, at the first view,
seem to countenance the opinion you have adopted.
" Now," says St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans,
" it is high time to awake out of sleep ; for now is our *-
salvation nearer than when we believed. The aight
is far spent, the day is at hand." And in his First
Epistle to the Thessalonians he comforts such ol
them as were sorrowing for the loss of their friends,
by assuring them, that they were not lost for ever;
but that the Lord, when he came, would bring them
with him; and that they would not, in the partici-
pation of any blessings, be in anywise behind those
who should happen then to be alive : " We," says he,
(the Christians of whatever age or country, agreeable
to a frequent use of the pronoun we,) " which are
alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall
not prevent them which are asleep ; for the Lord him-
self shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and
the dead in Christ shall rise first ; then we which are
alive, and remain, shall be caught up together with
them in the clouds to meet the Lord." In his Epistle
to the Philippians he exhorts his Christian brethren
not to disquiet themselves with carking cares about
their temporal concerns, from this powerful conside-
ration, that the Lord was at hani : " Let your mode-
ration be known to all men ; the Lord is at hand: be
careful for nothing." In the Epistle to the Hebrews
he inculcates the same doctrine, admonishing his con-
verts " to provoke one another to love, and to good

203] REPLY TO GIBBON. 21

works ; and so much the more, as they saw the day
approaching." The age in which the apostles lived
IS frequently called by them the end of the world,
the last days, the last hour. I think it unnecessary,
sir, to trouble you with an explication of these and
other similar texts of Scripture, which are usually ad-
duced in support of your opmion, since I hope to be
able to give you a direct proof, that the apostles neither
comforted themselves, nor encouraged others, with
the delightful hope of seeing their Master coming
again into the world.

It IS evident, then, that St. John, who survived all
the other apostles, could not have had any such ex-
pectation ; since, in the book of the revelation, the fu-
ture events of the Christian church, which were not
to take place, many of them, till a long series of years
after his death, and some of which have not yet been
accomplished, are there minutely described. St. Peter,
m like manner, strongly intimates, that the day of the
Lord might be said to be at hand, though it was at
the distance of a thousand years or more ; for in re-
plying to the taunt of those who did then, or should
in future ask, " Where is the promise of his coming ?"
he says, " Beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,
that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and
a thousand years as one day : The Lord is not slack
concerning his promise, as some men count slack-
ness." And he speaks of putting off his tabernacle, as
the Lord had showed him ; and of his endeavor that
the Christians after his decease might be able to have
these things in remembrance : so that it is past a
doubt, he could not be of opinion that the Lord would
come in his time. As to St. Paul, upon a partial view

^ WAT80N*8 [304

of whose writings the doctrine concerning the speedy
coming of Christ is principally founded, it is manifest,
that he was conscious he should not live to see it, not-
withstanding the expression before mentioned, "we
which are alive ;" for he foretells his own death in ex-
press terms : " The time of my departure is at hand ;''
and he speaks of his reward, not as immediately to be
conferred upon hira, but as laid up, and reserved for
him till some future day. " I have fought a good fight,
I have finished my course ; henceforth there is laid up
for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the
righteous judge, shall give me at that day." There is,
moreover, one passage in his writings which is so ex-
press, and full to the purpose, that it will put the
matter, I think, beyond all doubt; it occurs in his Se-
cond Epistle to the Thessalonians. They, it seems,
had, either by misinterpreting some parts of his former
letter to them, or by the preaching of some, who had
not the spirit of truth, by some means or other they
had been led to expect the speedy coming of Christ,
and been greatly disturbed in ro^nd upon that account.
To remove this error, he writes to them in the follow-
ing very solemn and affectionate manner : " We be-
seech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that
ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither
by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that
the day of the Lord is at hand; let no man deceive
you by any means." He then goes on to describe a fall-
ing away, a great corruption of the Christian church,
which was to happen before the day of the Lord. Now,
by this revelation of the man of sin, this mystery of
iniquity, which is to be consumed with the spirit of

2051 REPLY TO GIBBON. 23

his mouth, destroyed by the brightness of his coming,
we have every reason to believe, is to be understood
the past and present abominations of the church of
Rome. How then can it be said of Paul, who clearly
foresaw this corruption above seventeen hundred years
ago, that he expected the coming of the Lord in his
own day ? Let us press, sir, the mysterious language
of prophecy and revelation as closely as you please ;
but let us press it truly: and we may, perhaps, find
reason from thence to receive, with less reluctance, a
religion which describes a corruption, the strangeness
of which, had it not been foretold in unequivocal
terms, might have amazed even a friend to Christianity.
I will produce you, sir, a prophecy, which, the more
closely you press it, the more reason you will have to
believe, that the speedy coming of Christ could never
have been "predicted" by the apostles. Take it, as
translated by Bishop Newton : " But the Spirit speak-
eth expressly, that in the latter times, some shall apos-
tatize from the faith ; giving heed to erroneous spirits,
and doctrines concerning demons, through the hypo-
crisy of liars ; having their conscience seared with a
hot iron ; forbidding to marry, and commanding to ab-
stain from meats." Here you have an express prophe-
cy ; the Spirit hath spoken it ; that in the latter times,
not immediately, but at some distant period, some
should apostatize from the faith; some, who had been
Christians, should in truth be so no longer, but should
give heed to erroneous spirits, and d- ctrines concern
ing demons. Press this expression c'usely, and you
may, perhaps, discover in it the erroneous tenets, and
the demon or saint worship, of the church of Rome
" Through the hypocrisy of liars:" you recognize, no

ig Infidelity.

E4 Watson's [200

doubt, the priesthood, and the martyrologists. " Har
ing their conscience seared with a hot iron:" callous,
indeed, must his conscience be, who traffics in indul-
gence. " Forbidding to marry, and commanding to
abstain from meats :" this language needs no press-
ing ; it discovers, at once, the unhappy votaries of mo-
nastic life, and the mortal sin of eating flesh on fast
days.

If, notwithstanding what has been said, you should
still be of opinion that the apostles expected Christ
would come in their time ; it w^ill not follow that this
their error ought in any wise to diminish their autho-
rity as preachers of the Gospel. I am sensible this po-
sition may alarm even some well-wishers to Chris-
tianity ; and supply its enemies with what they will
think an irrefragable argument. The apostles, they
will say, were inspired with the Spirit of truth ; and
yet they fell into a gross mistake concerning a matter
of great importance ; how is this to be reconciled 1
Perhaps, in the following manner : When the time of
our Savior's ministry was nearly at an end, he thought
proper to raise the spirits of his disciples, who were
quite cast down with what he had told them about his
design of leaving them, by promising that he would
send to them the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Spi-
rit of truth, Avho should teach them all things, and
lead them into all truth. And we know, that this his
promise was accomplished on the day of Pentecost,
when they were all filled with the Holy Ghost ; and
we know farther, that from that time forward they
were enabled to speak with tongues, to work miracles,
to preach the word with power, and to comprehend
the mystery of the new dispensation which was com-

207J REPLY TO GIBBON. 25

mitted unto them. But we nave no reason from hence
to conclude, that they were immediately inspired with
the apprehension of whatever might be known : that
they became acquainted with all kinds of truth. They
were undoubtedly led into such truths as it was neces-
sary for them to know, in order to their converting the
world to Christianity ; but, in other things, they were
probably left to the exercise of their understanding, as
other men usually are. But surely they might be pro-
per witnesses of the life and resurrection of Christ,
though they were not acquainted with every thing
which might have been known ; though, in particular,
\hey were ignorant of the precise time when our Lord
would come to judge the world. It can be no im-
peachment, either of their integrity as men, or their
ability as historians, or their honesty as preachers of
the Gospel, that they were unacquainted with what
had never been revealed to them ; that they followed
their own understandings where they had no better
light to guide them; speaking from conjecture, when
they could not speak from certainty ; of themselves,
when they had no commandment of the Lord. They
knew but in part, and they prophesied but in part ; and
concerning this particular point, Jesus himself had told
them, just as he was about finally to leave them, that
it was not for them to " know the times and the seasons,
which the Father had put in his own power." Nor is
it to be wondered at, that the apostles were left in a
state of uncertainty concerning the time in which
Christ should appear; since beings far more exalted,
and more highly favored of heaven than they, were
under an equal degree of ignorance : " Of that day,"
says our Savior, "and of that hour, knoweth no man j

26 Watson's [208

no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father only." I am afraid, sir. I have
tired you with Scripture quotations; but if I have
been fortunate enough to convince you, either that the
speedy coming of Christ was never expected, much
less " predicted," by the apostles ; or that their mis-
take in that particular expectation can in no degree
diminish the general weight of their testimony as his-
torians, I shall not be sorry for the ennui I may hav^e
occasioned you.

The doctrine of the Millenium is the second of the
circumstances which you produce as giving weight to
that of a future state ; and you represent this doctrine
as having been " carefully calculated by a succession
of the fathers, from Justin Martyr and Irenseus, down
to Lactantius ;" and observe, that when "the edifice
of the church was almost completed, the temporary
support was laid aside :" and in the notes you refer
us, as a proof of what you advance, to " Irenaeus, the
disciple of Papias, who had seen the apostle John," and
to the second dialogue of Justin with Trypho.

I wish, sir, you had turned to Eusebius for the
character of this Papias, who had seen the apostle
John : you would there have found him represented
as little better than a credulous old woman ; very
averse from reading, but mightily given to picking
up stories and traditions next to fabulous ; amongst
which, Eusebids reckons this of the Millenium one.
Nor is it, I apprehend, quite certain, that Papias ever
saw, much less discoursed, as seems to be insinuated,
with the apostle John. Eusebius thinks rather, that
it was John the presbyter he had seen. But what if
he had seen the apostle himself? Many a weak-

209] REPLY TO GIBBON. 27

headed maQ had undoubtedly seen him as well as
Papias ; and it would be hard indeed upon Christians,
if they were compelled to receive, as apostolical tra-
ditions, the wild reveries of ancient enthusiasm, or
such crude conceptions of ignorant fanaticism as no-
thing but the rust of antiquity can render venerable.

As to the works of Justin, the very dialogue you
refer to contains a proof that the doctrine of the mil-
lennium had not, even in his time, the universal re-
ception you have supposed ; but that many Christians
of pure and pious principles rejected it. I wonder how
this passage escaped you ; but it may be that you fol-
lowed Tillotson, who himself followed Mede, and
read in the original ov instead of af; and thus unwari-
ly violated the idiom of the language, the sense of the
context, and the authority of the best editions. In the
note you observe, that it is unnecessary for you to
mention all the intermediate fathers between Justin
and Lactantius, as the fact, you say, is not disputed.
In a man who has read so many books, and to so good
a purpose, he must be captious indeed, who cannot ex-
cuse small mistakes. That unprejudiced regard to
truth, however, which is the great characteristic of
every distinguished historian, will, I am persuaded,
make you thank me for recalling to your memory that
Origen, the most learned of all the fathers ; and Dio-
nysius, bishop of Alexandria, usually, for his immense
erudition, surnamed the Great, were both of them prior
to Lactantius, and both of them impugners of the mil-
lennium doctrine. Look, sir, into Mosheim, or aln ost
any writer of ecclesiastical history, and you will fii.d
the opposition of Origen and Dionysius to this system
particularly noticed : look into so common an author
IS*

28 watson'3 f210

as Whilby, and in his learned treatise upon this sub-
ject you will find that he has well proved these two
propositions : first, that this opinion of the millennium
was never generally received in the church of Christ ;
secondly, that there is no just ground to think it was
derived from the apostles. From hence, I think, we
may conclude, that this millennium doctrine (whicn,
by the by, though it be new-modelled, is not yet thrown
aside) could not have been any very serviceable scaf-
fold in the erection of that mighty edifice which has
crushed by the weight of its materials, and debased
by the elegance of its structure, the stateliest temples
of heathen superstition. With these remarks, I take
leave of the millennium ; just observing, that your third
circumstance, the general conflagration, seems to be
effectually included in your first, the speedy coming
of Christ. I am, &c.

LETTER III.

Sir, — You esteem " the miraculous powers ascribeo
to the primitive church," as the third of the secondaiy
causes of the rapid growth of Christianity. I should
be willing to account the miracles, not merely ascribed
to the primitive church, but really performed by the
apostles, as the one great primary cause of the conver-
sion of the Gentiles. But waiving this consideration,
let us see whether the miraculous powers which you
ascribe to the primitive church, were in any eminent
degree calculated to spread the belief of Christianity
amongst a great and enlightened people.

They consisted, you tell us, " of divine inspirations,
conyeyed sometimes in the form of a sleeping, some

211] HEPLT TO GIBBON. 29

times of a waking vision ; and were liberally bestowed
on all ranks of the faithful, on women as on elders, on.
boys as well as upon bishops." " The design of these
visions," yo i say, " was for the most part either to
disclose the f iture history, or to guide the present ad-
ministration o»" the church." You speak of " the ex-
pulsion of demons as an ordinary triumph of religion,
usually performed in a public manner; and when the
patient was relieved by the skill or the power of the
exorcist, the vanquished demon was heard to confess
that he was one of the fabled gods of antiquity, who
had impiously usurped the adoration of mankind ;" and
you represent even the miracle of the resurrection ot
the dead as frequently performed on necessary occa-
sions. Cast your eye, sir, upon the church of Rome,
and ask yourself (I put the question to your heart, and
beg you will consult that for an answer ; ask yourself,)
whether her absurd pretensions to that very kind of
miraculous powers you have here displayed as opera-
ting to the increase of Christianity, have not converted
half her numbers to Protestantism, and the other half
to infidelity ? Neither the sword of the civil magis-
trate, nor the possession of the keys of heaven, nor
the terrors of her spiritual thunder, have been able to
keep within her pale even those who have been bred
up in her faith; how then should you think, that the
very cause which has almost extinguished Christiani-
ty among Christians, should have established it among
Pagans? 1 beg I may not be misunderstood. I do not
take upon me to say, that all the miracles recorded in
the history of the primitive church after the apostoli-
cal age were forgeries : it is foreign to the present pur-
pose to deliver any opinion upon that subject : but I

30 Watson's [212

do beg leave to insist upon this, that such of them as
"were forgeries must, in that learned age, by their easy
detection, have rather impeded than accelerated the
progress of Christianity ; and it appears very probable
to me, that nothing but the recent prevailing evidence
of real, unquestioned, apostolical miracles, could have
secured the infant church from being destroyed by
ihose which were falsely ascribed to it.

It is not every man who can nicely separate the cor-
ruptions of religion from religion itself, or justly ap-
portion the degrees of credit due to the aVersities ot
evidence, and those v/ho have ability for th.^ task are
usually ready enough to emancipate themseiyes from
Gospel restraints (which, thwart the propensities ot
sense, check the ebullitions of passion, and combat
the prejudices of the Avorld at every turn) by blending
its native simplicity with the superstitions which have
been derived from it. No argument is so well suited
to the indolence or the immorality of mankind, as that
priests of all ages and religions are the same : we see
the pretensions of the Romish priesthood to miracu-
lous powers, and Ave know them to be false ; we are
conscious that they, at least, must sacrifice their in-
tegrity to their interest or their ambition ; and being
persuaded that there is a great sameness in the pas-
sions of mankind and in their incentives to action ; and
knowing that the history of past ages is abundantly
stored with similar claims to supernatural authority,
we traverse back, in imagination, the most distant re-
gions of antiquity ; and finding, from a superficial view,
nothmg to discriminate one set of men or one period
of time from another, we hastily conclude that all re-
vealed religion is a cheat, and that the miracles attri-

213] REPLY TO GIBBON- 31

buted to the apostles themselves are supported by no
better testimony, nor more worthy cf our attention
than the prodigies of Pagan story or the lying wonders
of Papal artifice. I have no intention, in this place, to
enlarge upon the many circumstances by which a can-
did inquirer after truth might be enabled to distinguish
a pointed difference between the miracles of Christ
and his apostles, and the tricks of ancient or modern
superstition. One observation I would just suggest to
you upon this subject: the miracles recorded in the
Old and New Testament are so intimately united with
the narration of common events, and the ordinary
transactions of life, that you cannot, as in profane his-
tory, separate the one from the other. My meaning
will be illustrated by an instance : Ta^iius and Sue-
tonius have handed down to us an account of many
great actions performed by Vespasian ; and, among
the rest, they inform us of his having wrought some
miracles ; of his having cured a lame man, and restor-
ed sight to one that was blind. But what they tell us
of these miracles is so unconnected with every thing
that goes before and after, that you may reject the re-
lation of them without injuring, in any degree, the
consistency of the narration of the other circumstan-
ces of his life : on the other hand, if you reject the
relation of the miracles said to have been performed
oy Jesus Christ, you must necessarily reject the ac-
count of his whole life, and of several transactions,
concerning which we have the undoubted testimony
of other writers besides the evangelists. But if this
argument should not strike you, perhaps the following
observation may tend to remove a little of the preju-
dice usually conceived against Gospel miracles by men

32 WATSON 9 [214

of lively imaginations, on account of the gross forge-
ries attributed to the first ages of the church.

The phenomena of physics are sometimes happily
illustrated by an hypothesis ; and the most recondite
truths of mathematical science, not unfrequently, in-
vestigated from an absurd position. What if we try
the same method of arguing the case before us ? Let
us suppose, then, that a new revelation was to be pro-
mulged to mankind ; and that twelve unlearned and
unfriended men, inhabitants of any country most odious
and despicable in the eyes of Europe, should, by the
power of God, be endowed with the faculty of speak-
ing languages they had never learned, and performing
works surpassing all human ability ; and that, being
strongly impressed with a particular truth which they
were commissioned to promulgate, they should travel,
not only through the barbarous regions of Africa, but
through all the learned and polished states of Europe,
preaching every where with unremitted sedulity a new
religion, working stupendous miracles in attestation of
their mission, and communicating to their first con-
verts (as a seal of their conversion) a variety of spiri-
tual gifts: does it appear probable to you that, after
the death of these men, and probably after the deaths
of most of their immediate successors who had been
zealously attached to the faith they had seen so mira-
culously confirmed, none would ever attempt to impose
upon the credulous or the ignorant by a fictitious claim
to supernatural powers ? Would none of them aspire
to the gift of tongues ? Avould none of them mistake
frenzy for illumination, and the delusions of a heated
brain for the impulses of the Spirit ? would none un-
dertake to cure inveterate disorders, to expel demonsi.

815] REPLY TO GIBBON. 33

or to raise the dead 1 As far as I can apprehend, we
ought, from such a position, to deduce, by every rule of
probable reasoning, the precise conclusion which was,
in fact, verified in the case of the apostles : every spe-
cies of miracles which heaven had enabled the first
preachers to perform, would be counterfeited, either
from misguided zeal or interested cunning: either
through the imbecility or the iniquity of mankmd ; and
we might just as reasonably conclude that there never
was any piety, charity, or chastity in the world, from
seeing such plenty of pretenders to these virtues, as
that there never were any real miracles performed,
from considering the great store of those which have
been forged.

But, 1 know not how it has happened, there are many
in the present age (I am far from including you, sir,
in the number,) whose prejudices against all miracu-
lous events have arisen to that height, that it appears
to them utterly impossible for any human testimony,
however great, to establish their credibility. I beg par-
don for styling their reasoning, prejudice. I have no
design to give off'ence by that word. They may, with
equal right, throw the same imputation upon mine ;
and I tbink it just as illiberal in divines to attribute
the scepticism of every deist to wilful infidelity, as it
is in the deists to refer the faith of every divine to pro-
fessional bias. I have not had so little intercourse with
mankind, nor shunned so much the delightful freedom
of social converse as to be ignorant that there are
many men of upright morals and good understandings,
to whom, as you express it, " a latent and even invo-
luntary scepticism adheres ;" and who would be glad
to be persuaded to be Christians. For the sake of such

84 Watson's [216

men, if such should ever be induced to employ an hour
m the perusal ot these letters, suffer me to step for a
moment out of my Avay, whilst I hazard an observa-
tion or two upon the subject.

Knowledge is rightly divided by Mr. Locke into in-
tuitive, sensitive, and demonstrative. It is clear, that
a past miracle can neither be the object of sense nor
of intuition, nor consequently of demonstration: we
cannot then, philosophically speaking, be said to know,
that a miracle has ever been performed. But, in all
the great concerns of life, we are influenced by pro-
bability rather than knowledge : and of probability,
the same great author establishes two foundations ; a
conformity to our own experience, and the testimony
of others. Now, it has been contended, that by the op-
position of these two principles probability is destroy-
ed ; or, in other terms, that human testimony can never
influence the mind to assent to a proposition repug-
nant to uniform experience. Whose experience do you
mean ? You will not say, your own ; for the experience
of an individual reaches but a little way ; and, no
doubt, you daily assent to a thousand truths in poli-
tics, in physics, and in the business of common life,
which you have never seen verified by experience.
You will not produce the experience of your friends?
for that can extend itself but a little way beyond your
own. But by uniform experience, T conceive, you are
desirous of understanding the experience of all ages
and nations since the foundation of the world. I an-
swer, first; how is it that you become acquainted with
the experience of all ages and nations ? Ycu will re-
ply, from history. Be it so : peruse, then, by far th«
most ancient records of antiquity ; and if you find no

817J BEPL\ TO GIBBON. 36

mention of miracles in them, I give up the point. Yes )
bfit every thing related therein respecting miracles is
to be reckoned fabulous. Why ? Because miracles con-
tradict the experience of all ages and nations. Do you
not perceive, sir, that you beg the very question in de-
bate ? for we affirm, that the great and learned nation
of Egypt, that the heathen inhabiting the land of Ca-
naan, that the numerous people of the Jews, and the
nations which, for ages, surrounded them, have all
had great experience of miracles. You cannot other-
wise obviate this conclusion, than by questioning the
authenticity of that book, concerning which Newton,
when he was writing his commentary on Daniel, ex-
pressed himself to the person* from whom I had th«
anecdote, and which deserves not to be lost : " I find
more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in
any profane history whatsoever."

However, I mean not to press you with the argu
ment ad verecundiam ; it is needless to solicit your
modesty, when it may be possible, perhaps, to make
an impression upon your judgment: I answer, there-
fore, in the second place, that the admission of the
principle by which you reject miracles will lead us
mto absurdity. The laws of gravitation are the most
obvious of all the laws of nature ; every person in every
part of the globe must of necessity have had experience
of them. There was a time when no one was ac-
quainted with the laws of magnetism : these suspend
in many instances the laws of gravity : nor can I see,
upon the principle in question, how the rest of man-
kind could have credited the testimony of their first

* Dr. Smith, late JIaster of Trinity CoUeire.

19 Infldelitr*

'S6 Watson's ■ |218

discoverer ; and yet to have rejected it would have
'been to reject the truth. But that a piece of iron sliould
ascend gradually from the earth, and fly at last with
• an increasing rapidity through the air; and attaching
itself to another piece of iron, or to a particular species
of iron ore, should remain suspended, in opposition to
■the action of its gravity, it will be alledged, is con-
'sonant to the laws of nature. I grant it ; but there wa?
a time when it was contrary, I say not to the laws oJ
nature, but to the uniform experience of all preceding
ages and countries; and at that particular point ot
time, the testimony of an individual, or of a dozen in-
dividuals, who should have reported themselves eye-
witnesses of such a fact, ought, according to your ar-
gumentation, to have been received as fabulous. And
what are those laws of nature, which, you think, can
never be suspended ? Are they not different to differ-
ent men, according to the diversities of their compre-
hension and knowledge? And it any of them" (that,
for instance, which rules the operations of magnetism
or electricity) should have been known to you or to
"-me alone, whilst all the rest of the world were unac-
quainted with it ; the effects of it M^ould have been
new, and unheard of in the annals, and contrary to
ihe experience of mankind; and therefore ought not,
■in your opinion, to have been believed ! Nor do I un-
derstand what difference, as to credibility, there could
be between the effects of such an imknown law of na-
ture, and a miracle ; for it is a matter of no moment,
in that view, whether the suspension of the known
laws of nature be effected ; that is, Avhether a mirac.e
be perforned, by the mediation of other laws tnat arc
unkftownj or by the ministry ol a person divinely com-

219] REPLY TO GIBRON. 37

missioned; since it is impossible for us to be certain
lliat it is contradictory to the constitution of the uni-
verse, that the laws of nature, Avhich appear to us
general, should be suspended, and their action over-
ruled by others, still more general though less known ;
that is, that miracl&s should be performed before suc!i
a being as man, at those times, in those places, and
under those circumstances, which God, in his univer-
sal providence, had pre-ordained. I am, &c.

LETTER IV.

S4r; — I readily acknowledge the utility of your
fourth cause, " the virtues of the first Christians,'^ as
greatly conducing to the spreading of their religion ;
but tnen you seem to quite mar the compliment yow
pay them, by representing their virtues as proceediui;
either from their repentance for having been the most
abandoned sinners, or from the laudable desire of sup-
porting the reputation of the society in which they
were engaged.

That repentance is the first step to virtue, is true
enough ; but I see no reason for supposing, according
to the calumnies of Celsus and Julian, " that the
Christians allured into their party men who washed
away in the waters of baptism the guilt for which the
temples of the gods refused to grant them any expi-
ation." The apostles, sir, did not, like Romulus, open
an asylum for debtors, thieves and murderers; for
ihey had not the same sturdy means of securing their
adherents from the grasp of civil power ; they did nut
persuade them to abandon the temples of the gods

3« WATsoN'i I22(r

because, ihey could there obtain no expiation for their
guilt, but because every degree of guilt was expiated
in them with too great facility, and every vice prac-
ticed, not only without remorse of private conscience
but with the powerful sanction of public approbation.
"After the example," you say, "of their Divine
Master, the missionaries of the Gospel addressed
themselves to men, and especially to women, oppres-
sed by the consciousness, and very often by the effects,
of their vices." — This, sir, I really thijk, is not a fair
representation of the matter ; it may catch the ap-
plause of the unlearned, embolden many a stripling
to cast off for ever the sweet blush of modesty, confirm
many a dissolute veteran in the practice of his impure
habits, and suggest great occasion of merriment and
wanton mockery to the flagitious of every denomi-
nation and every age ; but still it will want that foun-
dation of truth which alone can recommend it to the
serious and judicious. The apostles, sir, were not
like the Italian FratriceUi of the thirteenth, nor the
French Turlvpins of the fourteenth century : in all
the dirt that has been raked up against Christianity,
even by the worst of its enemies, not a speck of that
kind have they been able to fix, either upon the apos-
tles or their Divine Master. The Gospel of Jesus
Christ, sir, was not preached in single houses or ob-
scure villages, not in subterraneous caves and im«
pure brothels, not m lazars and in prisons; but in
the synagogues and in the temples, in the streets
and the market places of the great capitals of the Ro-
man provinces ; in Jerusalem, in Corinth, and in An-
tioch ; in Athens, in Ephesus, and in Rome. Nor do
I any where find, that its missionaries were ordered

22 J J REPLY TO GIBBON. 39

particularly to address themselves to the shameless
women you mention : I do indeed find the direct con-
trary ; for they Avere ordered to turn away from, to
have no fellowship or intercourse with such as were
wont "to creep into houses, and lead captiA^e silly
women laden with sinSj led away with divers lusts."
And what if a few women, who had either been se-
duced by their passions, or had fallen victims to the
licentious manners of their age, should be found
amongst those wiio were most ready to receive a reli-
gion that forbad all impurity ? I do not apprehend
that this circumstance ought to bring an insinuation
of discredit, either upon the sex, or upon those who
wrought their reformation.

That the majority of the first converts to Christi-
anity were of an inferior condition in life, may readily
be allowed ; and you yourself have, in another place,
given a good reason for it : those who are distinguish-
ed by riches, honors, or knowledge, being so very in-
considerable in number when compared w^ith the bulk
of mankind. But though not many mighty, not many
noble were called — yet some mighty, and some noble,
some of as great reputation as any of the age in which
they lived, were attached to the Christian faith. Short
indeed are the accounts which have been transmitted
to us of the first propagating of Christianity ; yet, even,
in these we meet with the names of m£,ny who would
have done credit to any cause. I will not pretend to
enumerate them all ; a few of them will be sufficient
to make you recollect that there were, at least, some
converts to Christianity, both from among the Jews
and the Gentiles, whose lives Avere not stained with
inexpiable crimes. Among these Ave reckon Nicode-
19"

4^ WATSON'* j 22^

mus, a ruler of the Jews ; Joseph ef Arimathea, a man
of fortune and a counsellor ; a nobleman and a centu-
rion of Capernaum; Jairus, Crispus, Sosthenes, rulers
of synagogues ; Apollo?, an eloquent and learned man ;
Zenas, a Jewish lawyer; the treasurer of Candace,
queen of Ethiopia ; Cornelius, a centurion of the
Italian band ; Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus
lit Athens, and Sergius Paulus, a man of proconsular
or praetorian authority, of whom it may be remarked,
that if he resigned his high and lucrative office incon-
sequence of his turning Christian, it is a strong pre-
sumption in its favor ; if he retained it, we may con-
clude that the profession of Christianity was not so
utterly incompatible with the discharge of the offices
of civil life as you sometimes represent it.

This catalogue of men of rank, fortune, and know*
}«(3g€, who embraced Christianity, might, was it ne»-
jicssary, be much enlarged ; and probably another con-
versation with St. Paul would have enabled us to grace
it with the names of Festus, and king Agrippa him-
self; not that the writers of the books of the New
Testament seem to have been at all solicitous in men-
♦ioning the great or the learned men who were con-
verted to the faith. Had that been part of their design,
ihey would, in the true style of impostors, have kept
out of sight the publicans and sinners, the tanners and
tent-makers with whom they conversed and dwelt, and
introduced to our notice none but those who had been
" brought up with Herod or the chief men of Asia,"
wnom they had the honor to number among their
ftiends.

That the primitive Christians took great care to naT#
HU unsullied reputation by abstaining from the con^

223] REPLY TO GIBBON, 41

mission of whatever might tend to pollute it, is easily
admitted ; but we do not so easily grant that this care
is a " circumstance which usually attends small as-
semblies of men when they separate themselves from
the body of a nation, or the religion to which they be-
longed." It did not attend the Nicolaitanes, the Simo-
nians, the Menandrians, and the Carpocratians, in the
first ages of the church, of which you are speaking ;
and it cannot be unknown to you, sir, that the scan-
dalous vices of these very early sectaries brought a ge-
neral and undistinguished censure upon the Christian
name ; and, so far from promoting the increase of the
f hurch, excited in the minds of the Pagans an abhor-
rence of whatever respected it. It cannot be unknown
to you, sir, that several sectaries, both at home and
abroad, might be mentioned, who have departed from
the religion to which they belonged ; and which, un-
happily for themselves and the community, have taken
as little care to preserve their reputation unspotted, as
those of the first and second centuries. If, then, the
first Christians did take the care you mention, (and I
am wholly of your opinion in that point,) their solici-
tude might as candidly, perhaps, and as reasonably be
derived from a sense of their duty, and an honest en-
deavor to discharge it, as from the mere desire of in-
creasing the honor of their confraternity by the illus-
trious integrity of its members.

You are eloquent in describing the austere morality
of the primitive Christians, as adverse to the propen-
sities of sense, and abhorrent from all the innocent
pleasures and amusements of life; and you enlarge,
with a studied minuteness, upon their censures of lux-
ury, and their sentiments concerning marriage aad

42 WATSON 'a [224

chastity: but in this circumstantial enumeration of
their errors or their faults (which I am under no ne-
cessity of denying or excusing) you seem to forget
the very purpose for which you profess to have intro-
duced the mention of them; for the picture you have
drawn is so hideous, and the coloring so dismal, that
instead of alluring to a closer mspectiou, it must have
made every man of pleasure or of sense turn from it
Avith horror or di-sgu?t; and so far from contributing
10 the rapid growth of Christianity by the austerity of
tlieir manners, it must be a wonder to any one, how
the first Christians ever made a single convert. It w^as
lirst objected by Celsus, that Christianity was a mean
religion, inculcating such a pusillanimity and patience
under affronts, such a contempt of riches and Avorldly
honors, as must w^eaken the nerves of civil govern
ment, and expose a society of Christians to the prey
of the first invaders. This objection has been repeated
by Bayle; and though fully answered by Bernard and
others, it is still the favorite theme of every esprit fort
[freethinker.] of our own age : even you, sir, think the
aversion of Christians to the business of Avar and go-
vernment, '• a criminal disregard to the public welfare."
To all that has been said upon this subject it may with
justice, I think, be answered, that Christianity trou-
bles not itself wii-h ordering the constitutions r/ civil
societies, but levels the weight of all its influence at
the hearts of the individuals which compose thera ;
and, as Origeii said to Celsus, was every individual
in every nation a Gospel Christian, there would be
neither internal injustice, nor external war; there
would be none of those passions which embitter tho
intercourse of civil life, and desolate the globe. What

225] BBPLY TO GIBBON. 43

reproach then can it be to a religion, that it inculcates
doctrines, which, if universally practiced, would in-
troduce universal tranquility, and the most exalted
happiness amongst mankind ?

It must proceed from a total misapprehension of the
design of the Christian dispensation, or from a very
ignorant interpretation of the particular injunctions,
forbidding us to make riches or honors a primary pur-
suit, or the prompt gratification of revenge a first prin-
ciple of action, to infer, that an individual Christian
is obliged by his religion to offer his throat to an as-
sassin, and his property to the first plunderer, or that
a society of Christians may not repel, in the best
manner they are able, the unjust assaults of hostile
invasion.

I know of no precepts in the Gospel which debar a
man from the possession of domestic comforts, or
deaden the activity of his private friendships, or pro-
hibit the exertion of his utmost ability in the service
of the public : the nisi quietum nihil beatttm, [no hap-
piness without rest] is no part of the Christian's creed :
his virtue is an active virtue: and we justly refer to
the school of Epicurus the doctrines concerning absti-
nence from marriage, from the cultivation of friend-
ghip, from the management of public affairs, as suited
to that selfish indolence which was the favorite tenel
of his philosophy. I am, &c.

LETTER V.

Sir, — " The union and the discipline of the Chris-
tian church," or, as you are pleased to style it, of the

44 Watson's [226

Christian republic, is the kst of the fire secondary
causes to which you have referred the rapid and ex-
tensive spread of Christianity. It must be acknow-
ledged that union essentially contributes to the strength
of every association, civil,niilitary, and religious; but,
unfortunately for your argument, and much to the re-
proach of Christians, nothing has been more wanting
amongst them, from the apostolic age to your own,
than union. " I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, qnd 1
of Cephas, and I of Christ," are expressions of dis-
union, which we meet with in the earliest period of
church history : and we cannot look into the writings
of any, either friend or foe to Christianity, but we find
the one of them lamenting, and the other exulting in
an immense catalogue of sectaries ; and both of them
thereby furnishing us with great reason to believe that
the divisions with respect to doctrine, worship, and
discipline, which have ever subsisted in the church,
must have greatly tended to hurt the credit of Chris-
tianity, and to alienate the minds of the Gentiles from
the reception of such a various and discordant faith.
I readily grant, that there Avas a certain community
of doctrine, an intercourse of hospitality, and a confede-
racy of discipline established among the individuals of
every church ; so that none could be admitted into any
assembly of Christians without undergoing a previous
examination into his manner of life, (which shows, by-
the-by, that every reprobate could not, as the fit seized
him, or his iditeresl induced him, become a Christian,)
and without protesting in the most solemn manner,
that he would neither be guilty of murder, nor adulte-
ry, nor theft, nor perfidy ; and it may be granted also,
that those who broke this compact were ejected bj

227J. REPLY TO GIBBON. 45

common consent from the confraternity into which they
had heen admitted. It may be farther granted, that this
confederacy extended itself to independent churches;
and that those who had, for their immoralities, hep
excluded from Christian community in any one qhurch,
were rarely, if ever, admitted to it by another ; just as a
member who has been expelled any one college in a
university, is generally thought un\yorthy of being ad-
mitted by any other : but it is not admitted, that this
severity and this union of discipline could ever have
induced the Pagans to forsake the gords; of their coun-
try, and to expose themselves to the .contemptuous
hatred of their neighbors, and to all the severities
of persecution, exercised with unrelenting barbarity,
against tlie Christians.

T'he account you give of the origin and progress of
episcopal jurisdiction, of the pre-eminence of the me-
tropolitan churches, and of the ambition of the Roman
pontiff, I believe to be in general accurate and true;
and I am not in the least surprised at the bitterness
which now and then escapes you in treating this sub-
ject: for to see the most benign religion that imagina-
tion can form, becoming an instrument of oppression,
and the nlost humble one administering to the pride,
and the avarice, and the ambition of those who wished
to be considered as its guardians, and who avowed
themselves its professors, vv^ould extort a censure from
men more attached probably to church authority than
yourself. Not that I think it either a very candid, or a
very useful undertaking, to be solely and industrious-
ly engaged in portraying the characters of the profes-
sors of Christianity in the worst colors : it is not candid,
because " the great law of impartiality, which obliges

-«•■

46 Watson's [288

t
8n historian to reveal the imperfections of the unin-
spired teacliers and believers of the Gospel," obliges
him also not to conceal, or to pass over with niggard
and reluctant mention, the illustrious virtues of those
who gave up fortune and fame, all their comforts, and
all their hopes in this life ; nay, life itself, rather than
violate any one of the precepts of that Gospel which,
from the testimony of inspired teachers, they conceived
they had good reason to believe : it is not useful^ be-
cause " to a careless observer," (that is, to the gene-
rality of mankind.) " their faults may seem to cast a
shade on the faith which ihey professed ;" and may
really infect the minds of the young and unlearned
especially, with prejudices against a religion, upon
their rational reception or rejection of which, a matter
of the utmost importance may (believe me, sir, it may,
for aught you or any person else can prove to the con-
trary) entirely depend.

It is an easy matter to amuse ourselves and others
with the immoralities of priests and the ambition of
prelates ; with the absurd virulence of synods and
councils ; with the ridiculous doctrines which vision-
ary enthusiasts or interested churchmen have sancti-
fied with the name of Christian ; but a display of
ingenuity or erudition upon such subjects is much
misplaced, since it excites, almost in every person, an
unavoidable suspicion of the purity of the source it-
self from which such polluted streams have been de-
rived. Do not mistake my meaning. I am far from
wishing that the clergy should be looked up to with a
blind reverence, or their imperfections screened by iho
sanctity of their functions from the animadversion of
the world ; quite the contrary. Their conduct, I am

229] REPLY TO GIBBON. 47

of opinion, ought to be more nicely scrutinized, and
their deviation from the rectitude of the Gospel more
severely censured than that of other men ; but great
care should be taken not to represent their vices, or
their indiscretion, as originating in the principles of
their religion. Do not mistake me. I am not here beg-
ging quarters for Christianity, or contending that even
the principles of our religion should be received with
implicit faith; or that every objection to Christianity
should be stifled by a representation of the mischief it
might do if publicly promulged ; on the contrary, we
invite, nay, we challenge you to a direct and liberal
attack, though oblique glances and disingenuous in-
sinuations we are Avilling to avoid ; well knowing that
the character of our religion, like that of an honest
man, is defended with greater difficulty against the
suggestions of ridicule, and the secret malignity of
pretended friends, than against positive accusations
and the avowed malice of open enemies.

In your account of the primitive church, you set forth
that " the want of discipline and human learning was
supplied by the occasional assistance of the prophets,
who were called to that function without distinction of
age, sex, or natural abilities." That the gift of pro-
phecy was one of the spiritual gifts by which some of
the first Christians were enabled to co-operate with the
apostles in the general design of preaching the Gos-
pil ; and that this gift, or rather as Mr. Locke thinks,
the gift of tongues (by the ostentation of which many
of them were prompted to speak in their assemblies at
the same time) Avas the occasion of some disorder in
the church of Corinth, which required the interposi-
tion of the apostle to compose, is confessed on all

20 lufiJolity.

4S WATSON^S ^ [230

hands. But, if you mean that the prophets were ever
the sole pastors of the faithful, or that no provision was
made by the apostles for the good government and edi-
fication of the church, except what might be acci-
dentally derived from the occasional assistance of the
prophets, you are much mistaken, and have undoubt-
edly forgot what is said of Paul and Barnabas having
ordained elders in Lystra, Iconium, and Antiochj and
of Paul's commission to Titus, Avhom he had left iu
Crete, to ordain elders in every city ; and of his in-
structions both to him and Timothy concerning the
qualifications of those whom they were to appoint
bishops ; one of which was, that a bishop should be
able, by sound doctrine, to exhort and to convince the
gainsayer. Nor is it said, that this sound doctrine
was to be communicated to the bishco by prophecy, or
that all persons, without distinction, might be called
to that office ; but a bishop was to be " able to teach,"
not what he had learned by prophecy, but what Paul
publicly preached, '' the things that thou hast heard ol
me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to
faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
And in every place almost, where prophets are men-
tioned, they are joined v/ith apostles and teachers, and
other ministers of the Gospel ; so that there is no rea-
son for your representing them as a distinct order of
men, who were, by their occasional assistance, to sup-
ply the want of discipline and human learning in the
church. It would be taking too large a field to inquire
whether the prophets you speak of were endowed with
ordinary or extraordinary gifts ; whether they always
spoke by the immediate impulse of the Spirit, or ac-
cording to " the analogy of faith j" whether their gift

231] REPLY TO GIBBON. 49

consisted in the foretelling of future events, or in the
interpreting of Scripture to the edification, and exhor-
tation, and comfort of the church, or in both. I will
content myself with observing, that he will judge very
improperly concerning the prophets of the apostolic
church who takes his idea of their office or importanf>e
from your description of them.

In speaking of the community of goods, which, you
say, was adopted for a short time in the primitive
church, you hold as inconclusive the arguments of
Mosheim, who has endeavored to prove that it was a
community quite different from that recommended by
Pythagoras or Plato, consisting principally in a com-
mon use derived from an unbounded liberality, which
induced the opulent to share their riches with their in-
digent brethren. There have been others, as well as
Mosheim, who have entertained this opinion; and it
is not quite so indefensible as you represent it: but
whether it be reasonable or absurd, need not now be
examined ; it is far more necessary to take n-otice of
an expression which you have used, and which may
be apt to mislead unwary readers into a very injurious
suspicion concerning the integrity of the apostles. h\
process of time, you observe, " the converts who em-
braced the new religion were permitted to retain the
possession of their patrimony." This expression, •' per-
mitted to retain," in ordinary acceptation, implies an
antecedent obligation to part with. Now, sir, I have
not the shadow of a doubt in affirming that we have
no account in Scripture of any such obligation bein^
imposed upon the converts to Christianity, either by
Christ himself, or by hia apostles, or by any other au-
thoruy ; nay, in the rery place where this community

50 Watson's [232

of goods is treated of, there is an express proof (I know
not how your impartiality has happened to overlook it)
to the contrary. When Peter was about to inflict an
exemplary punishment upon Ananias (not for keeping
back a part of the price, as some men are fond of re-
presenting it, but) for his lying and hypocrisy, in offer-
ing a part of the price of his land as the whole of it ;
he said to him, "Whilst it remained (unsold) was it
not thine own ? and after it was sold, was it not in
thine own power?" From this account it is evident
that Ananias w^as under no obligation to part with his
patrimony ; and after he had parted with it, the price
was in his own power. The apostle would have " per-
mitted him to retain " the whole of it, if he had thought
fit, though he would not permit his prevarication to go
unpunished.

You have remarked, that " the feasts of love, the
agapce, as they were called, constituted a very pleas-
ing and essential part of public worship." Lest any
one should from hence be led to suspect that these
feasts of love, this pleasing part of the public worship
of the primitive church, resembled the unhallowed
meetings of some impure sectaries of our own times,
I will take the liberty to add to your account a short
explication of the nature of these agapse. TertuUian,
in the 39lh chapter of his Apology, has done it to my
hands. " The nature of our supper," says he, " is in-
dicated by its name ; it is called by a word which, in
the Greek language, signifies love. We are not anx-
ious about expense of the entertainment, since we
look upon that as gain which is expended, with a pi-
ous purpose, in the relief and refreshment of all our
indigent. The occasion of our entertainment being

233] REPLY TO GIBBON. 51

80 honorable, you may judge of the manner of its be-
ing conducted : it consists in the discharge of religious
duties; it admits nothing vile, nothing immodest. Be-
fore we sit down, prayer is made to God. The hungry
eat as much as they desire, and every one drinks as
much as can be useful to sober men. We so feast
as men who have their minds impressed with the
idea of spending the night in the worship of God ; we
so converse as men who are conscious that the Lord
heareth them," &c. Perhaps you may object to this
testimony in favor of the innocence of Christian meet-
ings as liable to a partiality, because it is the testi-
mony of a Christian; and you may, perhaps, be able
to pick out, from the writings of this Christian, some-
thing that looJi;s like a contradiction of this account:
however, I will rest the matter upon this testimony
for the present ; forbearing to quote any other Chris-
tian writer upon the subject, as I shall, in a future
letter, produce you a testimony superior to every ob-
jection. You speak too of the agapse as an essential
part of the public worship. This is not according to
your usual accuracy; for, had they been essential, the
edict of a heathen magistrate would not have been
able to put a stop to them ; yet Pliny, in his letter to
Trajan, expressly says, that the Christians left them
off upon his publishing an edict prohibiting assemblies.
We know that in the coui>cil of Carthage, in the fourth
century, on account of the abuses which attended them,
they began to be interdicted, and ceased, almost uni-
versally, in the fifth.

I have but two observations to make upon what you
Lave advanced concerning the severity of ecclesiasti-
cal penance : the first h, that even you yourself do not
20*

52 Watson's [234

deduce its institution from the Scriptures, but from the
power which every voluntary society has over its own
members ; and, therefore, however extravagant, or
Iiowever absurd — however opposite to the attributes
of a commiserating God, or the feelings of a fallible
man, it may be thought ; or upon whatever trivial oc-
casion, such as that you mention, of calumniating a
bishop, a presbyter, or even a deacon, it may have been
inflicted, Christ and his apostles are not answerable
for it. The other is, that it was, of all possible expe-
dients, the least fitted to accomplish the end for which
you think it was introduced, the propagation of Chris-
tianity. The sight of a penitent, humbled by a public
confession, emaciated by fasting, clothed in sackcloth,
prostrated at the door of the assembly, and imploring
for years together the pardon of his offences, and a re-
admission into the bosom of the church, was a much
more likely means of deterring the Pagans from Chris-
tian community, than the pious liberality you mention
was of alluring them into it. This pious liberality, sir,
would exhaust even your elegant powers of descrip-
tion, before you could exhibit it in the amiable man-
ner it deserves. It is derived from the " new command-
ment of loving one another ;" arid it has ever been the
distinguishing characteristic of Christians, as opposed
to every other denomination of men, Jews, Mahome-
dans, or Pagans. In the times of the apostles, and in
tlie first ages of the church, it showed itself m volun-
tary contributions for the relief of the poor and th«
persecuted, the infirm and the unfortunate. As soon aa
the church was permitted to have permanent posses-
sions in land, and acquired the protection of the civil
power, it exerted itself in the erection of hospital? <J

235] REPLY TO GinBXDN. 53

every kind ; institutions like these, of charity and hu-
manity, which were forgotten in the laws of Solon and
Lycurgus ; and for even one example of which, you
will, I believe, in vain explore the boasted annals of
Pagan Rome. Indeed, sir, you will think too injuri-
ously of this liberality, if you look upon its origin as
superstitious, or upon its application as an artifice of
the priesthood to seduce the indigent into the bosom
of the church : it was the pure and un( orrupted fruit
of genuine Christianity.

You are much surprised, and not a little concerned^
that Tacitus and the younger Pliny have spoken so
slightly of the Christian system; and thrt Seneca and
the elder Pliny have not vouchsafed t(; mention it at
all. This difficulty seems to have struck others as
well as yourself; and I might refer you to the conclu-
sion of the second volume of Dr. Lardner's Collection
of Ancient, Jewish, and Heathen Testimonies to the
Truth of the Christian Religion, for full satisfaction
in this point ; but perhaps an observation or two may
be sufficient to diminish your surprise.

Obscure sectaries of upright morals, when they se-
parate themselves from the religion of their country,
do not speedily acquire the attention of men of letters.
The historians are apprehensive of depreciating the
dignity of their learned labor, and contaminating their
splendid narration of illustrious events, by mixing with
it a disgusting detail of religious combinations ; and
the philosophers are usually too deeply engaged in ab-
stract science, or in exploring the infinite intricacy of
natural appearances, to busy themselves with what
they, perhaps hastily, esteem popular superstitions.
Historians and philosophers, of no mean reputation,

b4 WATSON '3 f23»J

might be mentioneJ, I believe, who were the contem-
poraries of Luther and the first reformers ; and who
have passed over, in negligent or contemptuous silence,
their daring and unpopular attempts to shake the stabi-
lity of St. Peter's chair. Opposition to the religion ol
a people must become general before it can deserve
the notice of the civil magistrate ; and till it does that,
it will mostly be thought below the animadversion ol
distinguished writer?. This remark is peculiarly ap-
plicable to the case in point. The first Christians, as
Christ had foretold, were " hated of all men for his
name's sake :" it was the name itself, not any vices
adhering to the name, which Pliny punished ; and they
were every where held in exceeding contempt, till theii
numbers excited the apprehension of the ruling powers.
The philosophers considered them as enthusiasts, and
neglected them; the priests opposed them as innova-
ters, and calumniated them ; the great overlooked them ;
the learned despised them ; and the curious alone, who
examined into the foundation of their faith, believed
them. But the negligence of some half dozen of wri-
ters (most of them, however, bear incidental testimony
to the truth of several facts respectin-g Christianity)
in not rel-ating circumstantially the origin, the pro-
gress, and the pretensions of a new sect, is a very in-
sufficient reason for questioning, eiiheT the evidence
of the principles upon which it was built, or the su-
pernatural power by which it was supported.

The Roman historians, moreover, were not only cul-
pably incurious concerning the Christians, but unpar-
donably ignorant of what concerned either them or the
Jews : I say, unpardortably ignorant, because the means
of information were within their reach ; the writings

237] REPLY TO GIBBON. 55

of Moses were every where to be had in Greek ; and
the works of Josephus were published before Tacitus
wrote his history ; and yet even Tacitus has fallen into
great absurdity, and self-contradiction, in his account
of the Jews ; and though Tertullian's zeal carried him
much too far, when he called him Mendaciorum, lo-
quacissimns, [the most loquacious of lias,] yet one
cannot help regretting the little pains he took to ac-
quire proper information upon that subject. He de-
rives the name of the Jews, by a forced interpolation,
from mount Ida in Crete ; and he represents them as
abhorring all kinds of images in public worship, and
yet accuses them of having placed the image of an ass
in the holy of holies ; and presently after he tells us,
that Pompey, when he profaned the temple, found the
sanctuary entirely empty. Similar inaccuracies might
be noticed in Plutarch, and other writers who have
spoken of the Jews ; and you yourself have referred
to an obscure passage in Suetonius, as offering a
proof how strangely the Jews and Christians of Rome
were confounded with each other. Why, then, should
we think it remarkable, that a few celebrated writers,
who looked upon the Christians as an obscure sect of
the Jews, and upon the Jews as a barbarous and de-
tested people, whose history was not worth the peru-
sal, and who were moreover engaged in the relation
of the great events which either occasioned or accom-
panied the ruin of their eternal empire ; why should
we be surprised that men occupied in such interesting
subjects, and influenced by such inveterate prejudices,
should have left us but short and imperfect descrip-
tions of the Christian system ?
, •' But how shall we excuse." you say, " the supine

58 Watson's [238

inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those
evidences which were presented by the hand of Om-
nipotence, not to their reason but to their senses ?'*
" The laws of nature were perpetually suspended for
the benefit of the church ; but the sages of Greece and
Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle." To
their shame be it spoken, that they did so ; " and, pur-
suing the ordinary occupations of life and study, ap-
peared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or
physical government of the world." To this objection
I answer, in the first place, that we have no reason to
believe that miracles were performed as often as the
philosophers deigned to give their attention to them ;
or that, at the period of time you allude to, the laws ot
nature were " perpetually " suspended for the benefit
of the church. It may be, that not one of the few hea-
then writers, whose books have escaped the ravages
of time, was ever present when a miracle was wrought ;
but will it follow, because Pliny, or Plutarch, or Galen,
or Seneca, or Suetonius, or Tacitus, had never seen
a miracle, that no miracles were ever performed ?
They, indeed, were learned and observant men; and
it may be a matter of surprise to us, that miracles so
celebrated, as the friends of Christianity suppose the
Christian ones to have been, should never have been
mentioned by them, though they had not seen them.
Had an Adrian, or a Vespasian been the author of but
a thousandth part of the miracles you have ascribed
to the primitive church, more than one, probably, ol
these very historians, philosophers as they were, wouW
have adorned his history with the narration of them ;
for though they turned aside from the awful spectacle
of the miracles of a poor despised apostle, yet they

239] REPLY TO GIBBON. 57

beheld, with exulting complacency, and have related,
■with unsuspecting credulity, the ostentatious tricks of
a Roman eniperoi". It was not for want of faith m mi-
raculous events that these sages neglected the Chris-
tian miracles, but for want of candor and impartial ex-
amination.

I answer, in the second place, that in the Acts of
the Apostles we have an account of a great multitude
of Pagans of every condition of life, who were so far
from being inattentive to the evidences which were
presented by the hand of Omnipotence to their senses,
that they contemplated them with reverence and won-
der; and, forsaking the religion of their ancestors, and
all the flattering hopes of worldly profit, reputation,
and tranquility, adhered with astonishing resolution
to the profession of Christianity. From the conclusion
of the Acts, till the time in which some of the sages
vou mention flourished, is a very obscure part of church
history; yet we are certain, that many of the Pagan,
and we have some reason to believe, that not a few
of the philosophic world, during that period, did not
turn aside from the awful spectacle of miracles, but
saw, and believed : and that a few others should be
found, who probably had never seen, and therefore
would not believe, is surely no very extraordinary cir-
cumstance. Why should we not answer to objections
guch as these with the boldness of St. Jerome; and
hid Celsus, and Porphyry, and Julian, and their fol-
lowers, learn the illustrious characters of the men who
founded, built up, and adorned the Christian church ?
Why should we not tell them, with Arnobius, of the
orators, the grammarians, the rhetoricians, the law-

ers. the physicians, the philosophersj " who appeared

58 Watson's [240

conscious of the alterations in the moral and physical
government of the world ;" and from that conscious-
ness, forsook the ordinary occupations of life and study,
and attached themselves to the Christian discipline ?
lansv^rer, in the last place, that the miracles of Chris-
tians were falsely attributed to magic ; and were, for
that reason, thought unworthy the notice of the writers
you have referred to. Suetonius, in his life of Nero,
calls the Christians men of a new and a magical su-
perstition. I am sensible that you laugh at those
" sagacious commentators " who translate the original
word by magical ; and, adopting the idea of Mosheim,
you think it ought to be rendered mischievous or per-
nicious: unquestionably it frequently has that mean-
ing; with due deference, however, to Mosheim and
yourself, I cannot help being of opinion, that in this
place, as descriptive of the Christian religion, it is
rightly translated rnagical. The Theodosian Code
must be my excuse for dissenting from such respecta-
ble authority ; and in it I conjecture you Avill find good
reason for being of my opinion. Nor ought any friend
to Christianity to be astonished or alarmed at Sueto-
nius applying the word magical to the Christian reli-
gion ; for the miracles Avrought by Christ and his apos-
tles principally consisted in alleviating the distresses
by curing the obstinate diseases of human kind; and
the proper meaning of magic, as understood by the an-
cients, is a higher and more holy branch of the art ot
healing. The elder Pliny lost his life in an eruption
of Mount Vesuvius, about forty-seven years after the
death of Christ: some fifteen years before the death
of Pliny, the Christians were persecuted at Rome for
a crime of which every person knew them innocent j

241] REPLY TO GIBBON. 59

but from the description which Tacitus gives of the
low estimation they were held in at that time, (for
which, however, he assigns no cause, and therefore
we may reasonably conjecture it was the same for
which the Jews were every where become so odious,
an opposition to polytheism,) and of the extreme suf-
ferings they underwent, we cannot be much surprised
that their name is not to be found in the works of
Pliny or of Seneca : the sect itself must, by Nero s
persecution, have been almost destroyed in Rome ;
and it would have been uncourtly, not to say unsafe,
to have noticed an order of men whose innocence an
emperor had determined to traduce, in order to divert
the dangerous but deserved stream of popular censure
from himself. Notwithstanding this, there is a pas-
sage in the Natural History of Pliny which, how
much soever it may have been overlooked, contains,
I think, a very strong allusion to the Christians, and
clearly intimates he had heard of their miracles. In
speaking concerning the origin of magic, he says ;
there is also another faction of magic, derived from
the Jews, Moses, and Lotopea, and subsisting at pre-
sent. The word faction does not ill denote the opi-
nion the Romans entertained of the religious associa-
tions of the Christians ; and a magical faction implies
their pretensions, at least, to the miraculous gifts of
healing ; and its descending from Moses is according
to the custom of the Romans, by which they con-
founded the Christians with the Jews ; and its being
then subsisting seems to have a strong reference to
the rumors Pliny had negligently heard reported of
the Christians.
Submitting each of these answers to your cool and

2 \ Infidelity.

60 ^ watson'9 [242

candid consideration, I proceed to take notice of ano-
ther difficulty in your fifteenth chapter, which some
have thought one of the most important in your whole
book ; the silence of profane historians concerning the
preternatural darkness at the crucifixion of Christ.
You know, sir, that several learned men are of opi-
nion, that profane history is not silent upon this sub-
ject ; I will neither trouble you with the testimony
of Phlegon, nor with the appeal of Tertullian to the
public registers of the Romans ; but, meeting you upon
your oAvn ground, and granting you every thing you
desire. I will endeavor, from a fair and candid exami-
nation of the history of this event, to suggest a doubt,
at least to your mind, whether this was " the greatest
phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been wit-
ness since the creation of the globe."

This darkness is mentioned by three of the four
evangelists; St. Matthew thus expresses himself:
" Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over
all the land until the ninth hour;" St. Mark says:
*' And when the sixth hour was come there was dark-
ness over the whole land until the ninth hour ;" St.
Luke : " And it was about the sixth hour, and there
was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour ;
and the sun was darkened." The three evangelists
agree that there was darkness ; and they agree in the
extent of the darkness : for it is the same expression
in the original, which our translators have rendered
earth in Luke^ and land in the two other accounts;
and they agree in the duration of the darkness — it
lasted three hours. Luke adds a particular circum-
stance, "that the sun was darkened." 1 do not know
whether thi^ event be any where else mentioned in

243] REPLY TO GIBBON. 61

Scripture, so that our inquiry can neither be extensive
nor difficult.

In philosophical propriety of speech, darkness con-
sists in the total absence of light, and admits of no
degrees ; however, in the more common acceptation
of the word, there are degrees of darkness as well as
of light ; and as the evangelists have said nothing, by
which the particular degree of darkness can be deter-
mined, we have as much reason to suppose it was
slight, as you have that it was excessive ; but if it was
slight, though it had extended itself over the surface
of the whole globe, the difficulty of its not being re-
corded by Pliny or Seneca vanishes at once. Do you
not perceive, sir, upon what a slender foundation this
mighty objection is grounded, when we have only to
put you upon proving that the darkness at the cruci-
fixion was of so unusual a nature as to have excited
the particular attention of all mankind, or even of
tliose who were witnesses to it ? But I do not mean
to deal so logically with you; rather give me leave
to spare you the trouble of your proof, by proving or
showing the probability, at least, of the direct con-
trary. There is a circumstance mentioned by St. John
which seems to indicate that the darkness was not so
excessive as is generally supposed ; for it is probable
that during the continuance of the darkness, Jesus
spoke both to his mother, and to his beloved disciple,
whom he saw from the cross ; they were near the
cross ; but the soldiers which surrounded it must have
kept them at too great a distance for Jesus to have
seen them and known them, had the darkness at the
crucifixion been excessive, like the preternatural dark-
ness which God brought upon the land of Egypt ; for

m WATSON'S im

It is expressly said, th*at during the continuance of
That darkness, "they saw not one another." The ex-
pression in St. Luke, " the sun was darkened," tends
rather to confirm than to overthrow this reasoning, i
am sensible this expression is generally equivalent to
another ; the sun was eclipsed : but the Bible is open
to us all ; and there can be no presumption in endea-
voring to investigate the meaning of Scripture for our-
selves. Happily for the present argumentation, the
very phrase of the sun's being darkened, occurs, in so
many words, in one other place (and in only one) of
the New Testament; and from that place you may
possibly see reason to imagine that the darkness might
not, perhaps, have been so intense as to deserve the
particular notice of the Roman naturalists : " And he
opened the bottomless pit, and there arose a smoke
out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace ; and
the sun was darkened, and the air, by reason of the
smoke of the pit." If we should say, that the sun at
the crucifixion was obnubilated, and darkened by the
intervention of clouds, as it is here represented to be
by the intervention of a smoke, like the smoke of a
furnace, I do not see what you could object to our ac-
count ; but such a phenomenon has surely no right to
be esteemed the greatest that mortal eye has ever be-
held. I may be mistaken in this interpretation ; but I
have no design to misrepresent the fact in order to
get rid of a difficulty: the darkness may have been as
intense as many commentators have supposed it ; but
neither they nor you can prove it was so ; and I am
surely under no necessity, upon this occasion, of
grautmg you, out of deference to any commentator,
what you can neither prove nor render probable.

245J REPLY TO GIBBON. 63

But you stiM, perhaps, may think that he darkness,
by its extent, made up for this deficiency in point of
intenseness. The original word, expressive of its ex-
tent, is sometimes interpreted by the whole earth ;
more frequently, in the New-Testament, of any little
portion of the earth: for we read of the land of Judah,
of the land of Israel, of the land of Zabulon, and of
the land of Nephthalim ; and it may very properly I
conceive, be translated in the place in question by re-
gion. But why should all the world take notice of a
darkness which extended itself for a few miles about
Jerusalem, and lasted but three hours ? The Italians,
especially, had no reason to remark the event as sin-
gular; since they were accustomed at that time, as
they are at present, to see the neighboring regions so
darkened for days together by the eruptions of Etna
and Vesuvius, that no man could know his neighbor.
We learn from the Scripture account, that an earth-
quake accompanied this darkness ; and a dark clouded
sky, I apprehend, very frequently precedes an earth-
quake ; but its extent is not great, nor is its intense-
ness excessive, nor is the phenomenon itself so unu-
sual as not commonly to pass unnoticed in ages of
science and history. I fear I may be liable to misre-
presentation in this place ; but I beg it may be ob-
served, that however slight in degree, or however
confined in extent the darkness at the crucifixion may
liave been, I am of opinion that the power of God
was as supernaiurally exerted in its production and
in that of the earthquake which accompanied it, as in
the opening of the graves, and the re-surrection of the
saints, wliich followed the resurrection of Christ.

In another place, you seem not to believe " that
21*

64 WATsox'a [2l^

Pontius Pilate informed the emperor of the unjust
sentence of death which he had pronounced a^rainst
an innocent person." And the same reason which
made him silent as to the death, ought, one would
suppose, to have made him silent as to the miraculous
events which accompanied it; and if Pilate, in his
dispatches to the emperor, transmitted no account of
the darkness (how great soever you suppose it to have
been) which happened in a distant province, I can-
not apprehend that the report of it could have ever
gained such credit at Rome as to induce either Pliny
or Seneca to mention it as an authentic fact. I am, &c.

LETTER VL

Sir: — I mean not to detain you long with my re-
marks upon your sixteenth chapter; for in a short
Apology for Christianity, it cannot be expected that I
should apologize at length for the indiscretions of tho
first Christians. Nor have I any disposition to reap a
malicious pleasure from exaggerating, which you have
had so much good-natured pleasure in extenuating,
the truculent barbarity of their Roman persecutors.

M. de Voltaire has embraced every opportunity of
contrasting the persecuting temper of the Christians
with the mild tolerance of the ancient heathens ; and
I never read a page of his upon this subject without
thinking Christianity materially, if not intentionally,
obliged to him, for his endeavor to depress the lofty
spirit of religious bigotry. I may with justice pay the
same compliment to you ; and I do it with sincerity ,
heartily wishing that, in the prosecution of your work,
you may render every species of intole«»''»nce univer-

247j REPLY TO GIBBON. 65

sally detestable. There is no reason why you should
abate the asperity of your invective, since no one can
suspect you of a design to traduce Christianity under
the guise of a zeal against persecution ; or if any one
should be so simple, he need but open the Gospel to
be convinced that such a scheme is too palpably ao-
surd to have ever entered the head of any sensible and
impartial man.

I wish, for the credit of human nature, that I could
find reason to agree with you in what you have said
of the " universal toleration of Polytheism ; of the
mild indifference of antiquity ; of the Roman princes
beholding without concern a thousand forms of reli-
gion subsisting in peace under their gentle sway."
But there are some passages in the Roman history
which make me hesitate at least in this point, and al-
most induce me to believe that the Romans were ex-
ceedingly jealous of all foreign religions, whether they
were accompanied with immoral manners or not.

It was the Roman custom, indeed, to invite the tu-
telary gods of the nations, which they intended to sub-
due, to abandon their charge, and to promise them the
same, or even a more august worship, in the city of
Rome ; and their triumphs were graced as much with
the exhibition of their captive gods, as with the less
humane one of their captive kings. But this custom,
though it filled the city with hundreds of gods of every
country, denomination, and quality, cannot be brought
AS a proof of Roman toleration ; it may indicate tho
excess of their vanity, the extent of their superstition,
or the refinement of their policy ; but it can never show
that the religion of individuals, when it differed from
fublic wisdom, was either connived »t as a mattei itf

66 watpon's [348

indifference, or tolerated as an inalienable right of htt-
man nature.

Upon another occasion, you, sir, have referred to
Livy as relating the introduction and suppression of
the rites of Bacchus ; and in that very place we find
him confessing, that the prohibiting of all foreign re-
ligions, and abolishing every mode of sacrifice which
differed from the Roman mode, was a business fre-
quently intrusted by their ancestors to the care of the
proper magistrates ; and he gives this reason for the
procedure : that nothing could contribute more effec-
tually to the ruin of religion than the sacrificing after
an external rite, and not after the manner instituted
by their fathers.

Not thirty years before this event, the Praetor, in
conformity to a decree of the senate, had issued an
edict, that no one should presume to sacrifice in any
public place after a new or foreign manner. And in a
still more early period, the aediles had been command-
ed to take care that no gods were worshiped excepc
the Roman gods ; and that the Roman gods were wor-
shiped after no manner but the established manner
of the country.

But to come nearer to the times of which you are
writing. In Dion Cassius you may meet with a great
courtier, one of the interior cabinet, and a polished
statesman, in a set speech upon the most momentous
subject, expressing himself to the emperor in a man-
ner agreeable enough to the practice of antiquity, but
utterly iaconsistent with the most remote idea of reli-
gious toleration. The speech alluded to contains, I
confess, nothing more than the advice of an indivi-
dual j but it ought to be remembered that that iudivi-

249J REPLY TO GIBBON. 6/

dual was Meecenas, that the advice was ^iven to Au-
gustus, and that the occasion of giving it was no les3
important than settling the form of the Roman govern-
ment. He recommends it to Cossar to worship the
gods himself according to the established form, and lo
force all others to do the same, and to hate and to
•punish all those who should attempt to introduce fo-
reign religions ; nay, he bids him, in the same place,
have an eye upon the philosophers also : so that free
thinking, free speaking at least, upon religious mat-
ters, was not quite so safe under the gentle sway of
the Roman princes as, thank God, it is under tho
much more gentle government of our own.

In the Edict of Toleration, published by Galerius af-
ter six years unremitted persecution of the Christians,
we perceive his motive for persecution to have been
the same with that which had influenced the conduct
of the more ancient Romans, an abhorrence of all in-
novations in religion. You have favored us with the
translation of this edict, in which he says, " we were
particularly desirous of reclaiming into the way of rea-
son and nature," ad bonas mantes (a good pretence
this for a polytheistic persecutor) " the deluded Chris-
tians, who had renounced the religion and ceremonies
instituted by their fathers :" this is the precise lan-
guage of Livy, describing a persecution of a foreign
religion three hundred years before, " turba erat nee
sacrificantium nee precantium deos patrio more." And
the very expedient of forcing the Christians to deliver
up their religious books, which was practiced in this
persecution, and which Mosheim attributes to the ad-
vice of Hierocles, and you to tnat of the philosophers
uf those times, seems clear to me, from the places

6d '♦ Watson's [250

in Livy before quoted, to have been nothii^ but an
old piece of state policy, to which the Romans had
recourse as often as they apprehended their established
religion to be in any danger.

In the preamble of the letter of toleration, which
the emperor Maximin reluctantly wrote to Sabinus
about a year after the publication of Galerms's Edict,
there is a plain avowal of the reasons which induced
<xalerius and Diocletian to commence their persecu-
tion ; they had seen the temples of the gods forsaken,
and were determined by the severity of punishment
to reclaim men to their worship.

In short, the system recommended by Maecenas, of
forcing every person to be of the emperor's religion,
and of hating and punishing every innovator, contain
ed no new doctrine : it was correspondent to the prac-
tice of the Roman senate, in the most illustrious times
of the republic, and seems to have been generally
adopted by the emperors in their treatment of Chris-
tians, whilst they themselves were pagans; and in
their treatment of pagans, after they themselves be-
came Christians; and if any one should be willing to
derive those laws against heretics (which are so ab-
liorrent from the mild spirit of the Gospel, and so re
proachful to the Roman code) from the blind adhe-
rence of the Christian emperors to the intolerant po-
licy of their pagan predecessors, something, I think,
might be produced in support of his conj-scture.

But I am sorry to have said so much upon such a
subject. In endeavoring to palliate the severity of the
Romans towards the Christians, you have remarked^
*'• It was in vain that the oppressed believer asserted
the inalienable rights of conscience and private judg

251 f REPLY TO GIBBON. 69

ment." " Though his situation might excite the pity,
his arguments could never reach the understanding,
either of the philosophic, or of the believing part of tl»e
pagan world." How is this, sir? are the argument*
for liberty of conscience so exceedingly inconclusive
that you think them incapable of reaching the under-
standing, even of philosophers ? A captious adversary
would embrace with avidity the opportunity this pas-
sage affords him, of blotting your character with the
odious stain of being a persecutor; a stain which no
learning can wipe out, which no genius or ability can
render amiable. I am far from entertaining such an
opinion of your principles ; but this conclusion seems
fairly deducible from what you have said, that the
minds of the pagans were so pre-occupied with the
notions of forcing, and hating, and punishing those
who differed from them in religion; that arguments for
the inalienable rights of conscience, which would have
co://inced yourself, and every philosopher in Europe,
and staggered the resolution of an inquisitor, were in-
capable of reaching their understandings, or making
any impression on their hearts ; and you might, per-
haps, have spared yourself some perplexity in the in-
vestigation of the motives which induced the Roman
emperors to persecute, and the Roman people to hate
tlie Christians, if you had not overlooked the true one,
and adopted with too great facility the erroneous idea
of the extreme tolerance of pagan Rome.

The Christians, you observe, were accused of athe-
ism : and it must be owned that they were the greatest
of all atheists, in the opinion of the polytheists ; for,
instead of Hesiod's thirty thousand gods, they could
not be brought to acknowledge above one ; and even

70 Watson's [Sj52

that one they refused, at the hazard of their lives, to
blaspheme with the appellation of Jupiter. But is it
Dot somewhat singular, that the pretensions of the
Cliristians to a constant intercourse with superior be-
ings, in the working of miracles, should have been a
principal cause of converting to their faith those who
branded them with the imputation of atheism?

They were accused, too, of forming dangerous con-
spiracies against the state : this accusation, you own,
was as unjust as the preceding : but there seems to
have been a peculiar hardship in the situation of the
Christians, since the very same men who thought
them dangerous to the state, on account of their con-
spiracies, condemned them, as you have observed, for
not interfering in its concerns ; for their criminal dis-
regard to the business of war and government, and for
their entertaining doctrines which were supposed " to
prohibit them from assuming the character of soldiers,
cf magistrates, and of princes :" men, such as these,
would have made but poor conspirators.

They were accused, lastly, of the most horrid crimes.
This accusation, it is confessed, was mere calumny ;
yet as calumny is generally more extensive in its influ-
ence than truth, perhaps this calumny might be more
powerful in stopping the progress of Christianity than
the virtues of the Christians were in promoting it ; and,
in truth, Origen observes, that the Chri'-.tians, on ae*
count of the crimes which were maliciously laid to
their charge, were held in such abhorrence that no one
would so much as speak to them. It may be worth
while to remark from him, that the Jews, in the very
bcpfinning of Christianity, Avere the authors of all those
calumnies which Celsus afterwards took such great

253] REPLY TO GIBBON. 71

delight in urging against the Christians, and which
you have mentioned with such great precision.

It is no improbable supposition, that the clandestine
manner in which the persecuting spirit of the Jews
and Gentiles obliged the Christians to celebrate their
eucharist, together with the expressions of eating the
body and drinking the blood of Christ, which were
Uaed in its institution, and the custom of imparting a
kiss of charity to each other, and of calling each other
by the appellations of brother and sister, (which the
Romans often used in an impure sense,) gave occa-
sions to their enemies to invent, and induced careless
observers to believe, all the odious things which were
said against the Christians.

You have displayed at length, in expressive diction,
the accusations of the enemies of Christianity ; and
you have told us of the imprudent defence by which
the Christians vindicated the purity of their morals ;
and you have huddled up in a short note (which many
a reader will never see) the testimony of Pliny to
their innocence. Permit me to do the Christians a lit-
tle justice, by producing in their cause the whole truth.

Between seventy and eighty years after the death
of Christ, Pliny had occasion to consult the emperor
Trajan concerning the manner in which he should
treat the Christians ; it seems as if there had been ju-
dicial proceedings against them, though Pliny had
never happened to attend any of them. He knew, in-
deed, that men were to be punished for being Chris-
tians or he would not, as a sensible magistrate, have
received the accusations of legal, much less of illegal,
anonymous informers against them ; nor would he, be-
fore he wrote to the emperor, have put to death those

22 Infidelity.

72 Watson's [254

whom his threats could not hio'^er from persevering in
their confession that they were Christians. His harsh
manner of proceeding "in an office the most repug-
nant to his humanity," had made many apostatize from
their profession. Persons of this complexion were well
fitted to inform him of every thing they knew concern-
ing the Christians ; accordingly, he examined them,
but not one of them accused the Christians of any
other crime than of praying to Christ, as to some God,
and of binding themselves by an oath not to be guilty
of any wickedness. Not contented with this informa-
tion, he put two maid servants, which were called mi-
nisters, to the torture ; but even the rack could not
extort from the imbecility of the sex a confession of
any crime, any account different from that which the
apostates had voluntarily given ; not a word do we find
of their feasting upon murdered infants, or of their
mixing in incestuous commerce. After all his pains,
Pliny pronounced the meal of the Christians to be pro-
miscuous and innocent ; persons of both sexes, of all
ages, and of every condition, assembled promiscuously
together ; there was nothing for chastity to blush at, or
for humanity to shudder at in these meetings : there
v/as no secret initiation of proselytes by abhorred rites,
but they ate a promiscuous meal in Christian charity,
and with the most perfect innocence. Plin. Epis. 97 :
lib. 10.

Whatever faults, then, the Christians may have been
guilty of in after-times — though you could produce to
us a thousand ambitious prelates of Carthage, or sen-
sual ones of Antioch, and blot ten thousand pages with
the impurities of the Christian clergy, yet, at this pe-
riod, while the memory of Christ and his apostles was

2551 REPLY TO GIBBON. 73

fresh m their minds — or, m the more emphatic lan-
guage of Jerome, "while the blood of our Lord was
warm, and recent faith was fervent in the believers,"
we have the greatest reason to conclude that they were
eminently distinguished for the probity and the purity
of their lives. Had there been but a shadow of a crime
in their assemblies, it must have been detected by the
industrious search of the intelligent Pliny ; and it is
a matter of real surprise that no one of the apostates
thought of paying court to the governor by a false tes-
timony, especially as the apostacy seems to have been
exceeding general ; since the temples, which had been
almost deserted, began again to be frequented; and
the victims, for which a little time before scarce a
purchaser was to be found, began again every where
to be bought up. This, sir, is a valuable testimony in
our favor; it is not that of a declaiming apologist, of
a deluding priest, or of a deluded martyr of an ortho
dox bishop, or of any "of the most pious of men," the
Christians ; but it is that of a Roman magistrate, phi-
losopher, and lawyer, who cannot be supposed to have
wanted inclination to detect the immoralities or the
conspiracies of the Christians, since, in his treatment
of them, he had stretched the authority of his of-
fice and violated alike the laws of his country and of
humanity.

With this testimony I will conclude my remarks,
for I have no disposition to blacken the character you
have given of Nero ; or to lessen the humanity of the
Roman magistrates ; or to magnify the number of
Christians or of martyrs; or to undertake the defence
of a few fanatics, who by their injudicious zeal brought
ruin upon themselves and disgrace upon their profes-

"'4 Watson's [256

sion. I may not, probably, have convinced you that
you are wrong in any thing which you have advanced,
or that the authors you have quoted will not support
you in the inferences you have drawn from their works ;
or that Christianity ought to be distinguished from its
corruptions ; yet I may, perhaps, have had the good
fortune to lessen, in the minds of others, some of that
dislike to the Christian religion which the perusal of
your book had unhappily excited. I have touched but
upon general topics, for I should have wearied out your
patience, to say nothing of my reader's, or my own, had
I enlarged upon every thing in which I dissent from
you; and a minute examination of your work would,
moreover, have had the appearance of a captious dis-
position to descend into illiberal personalities, and
might have produced a certain acrimony of sentiment
or expression which may be serviceable in supplying
the place of argument, or adding a zest to a dull com-
position, but has nothing to do with the investigation
of truth. Sorry shall I be if what I have Avritten should
give the least interruption to the prosecution of the
great w^ork in which you are engaged. The world is
now possessed of the opinion of us both upon the sub-
ject in question, and it may, perhaps, be proper for U!»
both to leave it in this state. I say not this from any
backwardness to acknowledge my mistakes, when I
am convinced that I am in an error, but to express the
almost insuperable reluctance w^hich I feel to the ban-
dying abusive argument in public controversy. It is
RGt, in good truth, a difficult task to chastise the fro-
ward petulence of those who mistake personal invec-
tive for reasoning, and clumsy banter for ingenuity ;
but it is a dirty business at best, and should never be

J57] REPLY TO GIBBON. 75

undertaken by a man of any temper except when the
interest* of truth may suffer by his neglect. Nothing
of this nature, I am sensible, is to be expected from
you ; and if any thing of the kind has happened to
escape myself, I hereby disclaim the intention of say-
ing it, and heartily wish it unsaid.

Will you permit me, sir, through this channel (I
may not, perhaps, have another so good an opportunity
of doing it) to address a few words, not to yourself,
but to a set of men who disturb all serious company
with their profane declamation against Christianity ;
and who, having picked up in their travels, or in the
writings of the Deists, a few flimsy objections, infect,
with their ignorant and irreverent ridicule, the inge-
nuous minds of the rising generation ?

APPEAL TO INFIDELS.

Gentlemen, — Suppose the mighty work accom-
plished, the cross trampled upon, Christianity every-
where proscribed, and the religion of nature once more
become the religion of Christendom ; what advantage
will you have derived to your country, or to your-
selves, from the exchange? I know your answer:
you will have freed the world from the hypocrisy of
priests, and the tyranny of superstition. No ; yoo
forget that Lycurgus, and Numa, and Odin, and Maa
go-Copac, and all the great legislators of ancient and
modern story, have been of opinion that the affairs
of civil society could not well be conducted without
some religion ; you must of necessity introduce a
priesthood, with probably as much hypocrisy ; a reli-
22*

76 Watson's L^5B

gion with assuredly more superstition, than that
which you now reprobate with such indecent and ill-
grounded contempt. But I will tell you from what
you will have freed the world : you will have freed
It from its abhorrence of vice, and from every power-
ful incentive to virtue ; you will, with the religion,
liave brought back the depraved morality of Pagan-
ism ; you will have robbed mankind of their firm
assurance of another life, and thereby you will have
despoiled them of their patience, of their humility,
of their charity, of their chastity, of all those mild
and silent virtues, which (however despicable they
may appear in your eyes) are the only ones which
meliorate and sublime our nature ; which Paganism
never knew, which spring from Christianity alone,
which do or might constitute our comfort in this life,
and without the possession of which, another life,
if after all there should happen to be one, must (un-
less a miracle be exerted in the alteration of our dis-
position) be more vicious and more miserable than

this is. Ill

Perhaps you will contend that the universal light
of reason, that the truth and fitness of things, are of
themselves sufficient to exalt the nature, and regulate
the manners of mankind. Shall we never have done
>with this groundless commendation of natural law?
Look into the first chapter of Paul's Epistle to the
Romans, and you will see the extent of its influence
over the Gentiles of those days ; or if you dislike
Paul's authority, and the manners of antiquity, look
into the more admired accounts of modern voyagers;
and examine its influence over the pagans of our own
times over the sensual inhabitants of Otaheite, ovei

259] REPLY TO GIBBON. 77

the cannibais of New Zealand, or the remorseless
savages of America. " But these men are barbarians.''
Your law of nature, notwithstanding, extends even
to them. "But they have misused their reason*"
they have then the more need of, and would be the
more thankful for, that revelation which you, with an
ignorant and fastidious self-sufficiency, deem useless.
" But they might of themselves, if they thought fit,
become wise and virtuous." I answer wdth Cicero,
" Ut nihil interest, utrum nemo valeat, an nemo v;c-
lere possit; sic non intelligo quid intersit, utrum
nemo, sit sapiens, an nemo esse possit:" i. e. if they
in fact continue in ignorance and vice, the evil is as
great as if they had no means of learning a better
way.

These, however, you will think, are extraordinary
instances : and that we ought not from these to take
our measure of the excellency of the law of nature,
but rather from the civilized states of China and
Japan, or from the nations which flourished in learn-
ing and in arts before Christianity was heard of in
the world. You mean to say, that by the law of na-
ture, which you are desirous of substituting in the
room of the Gospel, you do not understand those rules
of conduct which an individual, abstracted from the
community, and deprived of the institution of rr.an-
kind, could excogitate for himself: but such a system
of precepts as the most enlightened men of the most
enlightened ages have recommended to our observance.
Where do you find this system? We cannot meet
with it in the Avorks of Stobfeus, or the Scythian
Anacharsis ; nor in those of Plato, or Cicero ; nor in
those of the Emperor Antoninus, or the slave Epicte-

78 Watson's [260

tus ; for we are persuaded that the most animated
consideration of the vt^i-rov, and the lionestum, of the
beauty of virtue, and the fitness of things, are not
able to furnish even a Brutus himself with perma-
nent principles of action ; much less are they able to
purify the polluted recesses of a vitiated heart, to
curb the irregularity of appetite, or restrain the impe-
tuosity of passion in common men. If you order us
to examine the works of Grotius, or PufTendorf, or
Burlamaqui, or Hutchinson, for what you understand
by the law of nature, we apprehend that you are in
a great error, in taking your notions of natural law,
as discoverable by natural reason, from the elegant
systems of it, which have been drawn up by Chris-
tian philosophers ; since they have all laid their foun-
dations, either tacitly or expressly, upon a principle
derived from revelation ; a thorough knowledge of the
being and attributes of God : and even those amongst
yourselves who, rejecting Christianity, still continue
theists, are indebted to revelation (whether you are
either aware of, or disposed to acknowledge the debt,
or not) for those sublime speculations concerning the
Deity which you have fondly attributed to the excel-
lency of your own unassisted reason. If you would
know the real genius of natural law, and how far it
can proceed in the investigation or enforcement of
moral duties, you must consult the manners and wri-
tings of those who have never heard of either the
Jewish or the Christian dispensation, or of those other
manifestations of himself which God vouchsafed to
Adam, and to the patriarchs before and after the flood
It would be difficult, perhaps, anywhere to find a peo-
ple entirely destitute of traditionary notices concern-

201 J REPLY TO GIBeON. 79

ing the Deity, and of traditionary fears or expectations
of another life ; and the morals of mankind may have,
perhaps, been nowhere quite so abandoned as they
would have been, had they been left wholly to them-
selves in these points : however, it is a truth which
cannot be denied, how much soever it may be la-
mented, that though the generality of mankind have
always had some faint conceptions of God and his
providence, yet they have been always greatly ineffi-
cacious in the production of good morality, and highly
derogatory to his nature, amongst all the people of the
earth, except the Jews and Christians ; and some may
perhaps be desirous of excepting the Mahomedans,
who derive all that is good in their Koran from
Christianity.

The laws concerning justice, and the reparation of
damages ; concerning the security of property, and
the performance of contracts ; concerning, in short,
whatever affects the well-being of civil society, have
been everywhere understood with sufficient precision ;
and if you choose to style Justinian's code, a code of
natural law, though you will err against propriety of
speech, yet you are so far in the right, that natural
reason discovered, and the depravity of human na-
ture compelled human kind to establish, by proper
sanctions, the laws therein contained ; and you will
have, moreover, Carneades, no mean philosopher, on
your side; who knew of no law of nature different
from that which men had institutued for their com-
mon utility, and which was various according to (he
manners of men in different climates, and changeable
with a change of times in the same. And, in truth
m all countries where Paeranism has been the estab-

80 WATSON 9 [262

lished religion, though a philosopher may now and then
have stepped beyond the paltry prescript of civil juris-
prudence in his pursuit of virtue, yet the bulk ot
mankind have ever been contented with that scanty
pittance of morality which enabled them to escape
the lash of civil punishment : I call it a scanty pit-
tance, because a man may be intemperate, iniquitous,
impious, a thousand ways a profligate and a villain,
and yet elude the cognizance and avoid the punish-
ment of civil laws.

I am sensible you will be ready to say, " what is
all this to the purpose? Though the bulk of mankind
may never be able to investigate the laws of natural re-
ligion, nor disposed to reverence their sanctions when
investigated by others, nor solicitous about any other
standard of moral rectitude than civil legislation; yet
the inconveniences which may attend the extirpation
of Christianity can be no proof of its truth." I have
not produced them as a proof of its truth ; but they
are a strong and conclusive proof, if not of its truth,
at least of its utility ; and the consideration of its uti-
lity may be a motive to yourselves for examining
whether it may not chance to be true ; and it ought
to be a reason with every good citizen, and with
every man of sound judgment, to keep his opinions to
himself, if from any particular circumstances in his
studies or in his education he should have the mis-
fortune to think that it is not true. If you can disco-
ver to the rising generation a better religion than the
Christian, one that will more efiectually animate their
hopes, and subdue their passions, make them bettei
men or better members of society, we importune you
to publish it for their advantage; but till you can dc

263] REPLY TO GIBBON. 81

that, we beg of you not to give the reins to their pas ■
sions, by instilling into their unsuspicious minds your
pernicious prejudices. Even now, men scruple not,
by their lawless lust, to ruin the repose of private fa-
milies, and to fix a stain of infamy upon the noblest ;
even now, they hesitate not in lifting up a murderous
arm agaiust the life of their friend, or against their
own, as often as the fever of intemperance stimulates
iheir resentment, or the satiety of a useless life excites
their despondency : even now, whilst we are persuad-
ed of a resurrection from the dead, and of a. judgment
to come, we find it difficult enough to resist the soli-
citations of sense, and to escape unspotted from the
licentious manners of the world : but what will be-
come of our virtue, what of the consequent peace and
Happiness of society, if you persuade us that there are
no such things ? In two words, you may ruin your-
iselves by your attempt, and you will certainly ruin
your country by your success.

But the consideration of the inutility of your de-
sign IS not the only one which should induce you to
abandon it ; the argument a tuto [from safety] ought
to be warily managed, or it may tend to the silencing
of our opposition to any system of superstition which
has had the good fortune to be sanctified by public au-
thority: it is, indeed, liable to no objection in the pre-
sent case : we do not, however, wholly rely upon its
cogency. It is not contended that Christianity is to
be received merely because it is useful, but because it
is true. Thi* you deny, and think your objections
well grounded : we conceive them originating in your
vanity, your immorality, or your misapprehension.
There are many worthless doctrines many supersti-

82 Watson's [204

tious observances, which the fraud or folly of man
kind have every where annexed to Christianiiy, (espe-
cially in the church of Rome,) as essential parts of
it: if you take these sorry appendages to Christianity
for Christianity itself, as preached by Christ, and by
the apostles ; if you confound the Roman Avith the
Christian religion, you quite misapprehend its nature,
and are in a state similar to that of men mentioned
by Plutarch, in his Treatise of Superstition ; who,
flying from superstition, leapt over religion, and sunk
into downright atheism. Christianity is not a reli-
gion very palatable to a voluptuous age ; it will not
conform its precepts to the standard of fashion ; it will
not lessen the deformity of vice by lenient appella-
tions ; but calls keeping, W'horedom , mtrigue, adul-
tery ; and duelling, murder: it Avili not pander to lust,
it will not license the intemperance of mankind ; it is
a troublesome monitor to a man of pleasure ; and your
way of life may have made you quarrel wath your re-
ligion. As to your vanity, as a cause of your infide-
lity, suffer me to produce the sentiments of M. Bayle
upon that head: if the description does not suit your
character, you will not be offended at it ; and if you
are offended with its freedom, it will do you good.
" This inclines me to believe that libertines, like
Des-Barreaux, are not greatly persuaded of the truth
of what they say. They have made no deep exami-
nation; they have learned some few objections, which
they are perpetually making a noise with ; they speak
from a principle of ostentation, and give themselves
the lie in the time of danger. Vanity has a greater
share in iheir disputes than conscience; they imagine
Hat the singularity and boldness of the opinions

265^ REPLY TO GIBBON. 83

which they maintain, will give them the reputation
of men of parts : by degrees, they get a habit of hold-
ing impious discourses ; and if their vanity be accom-
panied by a voluptuous life, their progress in that road
is the swifterj'

The main stress of your objections rests not upon ^
the insufficiency of the external evidence to the truth
of Christianity ; for few of you, though you may be-
come the future ornaments of the senate, or of the bar,
have ever employed an hour in its examination ; but
upon the difficulty of the doctrines contained in the
New Testament : they exceed, you say, your compre-
hension ; and you felicitate yourselves that you are
not arrived at the true standard of orthodox faith —
credo quia impossibile. [I believe it, because it is
impossible.] You think it would be taking a super-
fluous trouble to inquire into the nature of the exter-
nal proofs by which Christianity is established; since,
in your opinion, the book itself carries with it its own
refutation. A gentleman as acute, probably, as any
of you, and who once believed, perhaps, as little as
any of you, has drawn a quite different conclusion
from the perusal of the New Testament: his treatise
exhibits not only a distinguished triumph of reason
over prejudice, of Christianity over deism, but it ex-
hibits, what is infinitely more rare, the character of a
man who has had courage and candor enough to ac-
knowledge it.*

But what if there should be some incomprehensible
doctrines in the Christian religion ; some circumstances
which in their causes, or their consequences, surpass

*See the view of the Internal Evidence, by Soame Jenyna.
23 Infidelity.

■84 Watson's 'J66

the reach of human reason ; are they to be rejected on
that account ? You are, or would be thought, men of
reading, and knowledge, and enlarged understandings ;
weigh the matter fairly, and consider whether revealed
religion be not, in this respect, just upon the same
footing with every other object of your contemplation
Even in mathematics, the science of demonstration
itself, though you get over its first principles, and learn
to digest the idea of a point without parts, a line with-
out breadth, and a surface without thickness, yet you
will find yourself at a loss to comprehend the perpe-
tual approximation of lines which can never meet ; the
doctrine of incommensurables, and of an infinity of in-
finites, each infinitely greater, or infinitely less, not
only than any finite quantity, but than each other. In
physics, you cannot comprehend the primary cause of
any thing ; not of the light by which you see ; nor of
the elasticity of the air, by which you hear ; nor of the
fire by which you are warmed. In physiology, you can-
not tell what first gave motion to the heart, nor what
continues it, nor why its motion is less voluntary than
that of the lungs ; nor why you are able to move your
arm to the right or left, by a simple volition : you can-
not explain the cause of animal heat, nor comprehend
the principle by Avhich your body was at first formed,
nor by which it is sustained, nor by Avhich it will be
reduced to earth. In natural religion you cannot com-
prehend the eternity or omnipresence of the Deity ;
nor easily understand how his prescience can be con-
sistent with your freedom, or his immutability with
his government of moral agents; nor why he did not
make all his creatures equally perfect; nor why he
did not create them sooner ; in short, you cannot lock

267] REPLY TO GIBBON. 85

into any branch of knowledge but you will meet with
subjects above your comprehension. The fall and the
redemption of human kind are not more incomprehen-
sible than the creation and the conservation of the uni-
verse ; the infinite Author of the works of providence,
and of nature, is equally inscrutable ; equally past our
finding out, in them both. And it is somewhat remark-
able, that the. deepest inquirers into nature have ever
thought with most reverence, and spoken with most
diffidence, concerning those things which, in revealed
religion, may seem hard to be understood : they have
ever avoided that self-sufficiency of knoAvledge which
springs from ignorance, produces indifference, and
ends in infidelity. Admirable to this purpose is the
reflection of the greatest mathematician of the present
age, when he is combating an opinion of Newton's by
an hypothesis of his own, still less defensible than
that which he opposes : " Tous les jours que je vols
de ces esprits forts, qui critique les verites de notre
religion, et s'en mocquent meme avec la plus imper-
tinente suffisance, je pense, chetifs mortels ! combien
et combien des choses sur lesquelles vous raissonez
si legerement, sont elles plus sublimes, et plus eleves,
que celles sur lesquelles le grand Newton s'egare si
grossierement ! [When I see these pretended free-
thinkers cavilling at the truths of our religion, and
scoffing at them with the most impertinent self-suffi-
ciency, I think, poor mortals ! how many things on
which you argue so flippantly are more sublime and
elevated than those on which the great Newton so
much erred !] Euler.

Plato mentions a set of men who were very igno-
rant, and thought themselves supremely wise, and who

86 WATSoN'ft [2iB8

rejected the arguments for the being of a God, derived
from the harmony and order of the universe, as old
and trite. There have been men it seems in all ages,
who, in affecting singularity, have overlooked truth ;
an argument, however, is not the worse for being old ;
and surely it would have been a more just mode of
reasoning if you had examined the external evidence
for the truth of Christianity, weighed the old argu
ments from miracles, and from prophecies, before yon
had rejected the whole account from the difficulties
you met with in it. You would laugh at an Indian,
who, in peeping into a history of England, and meet-
ing with the mention of the Thames being frozen, or
of a shower of hail, or of snow, should throw the book
aside as unworthy of his farther notice, from his want
of ability to comprehend these phenomena.

In considering the argument from miracles, you will
soon be convinced that it is possible for God to work
miracles ; and you will be convinced that it is as pos-
sible for human testimony to establish the truth of mi-
raculous, as of physical or historical events : but before
you can be convinced that the miracles in question
are supported by such testimony as deserves to be cre-
dited, you must inquire at what period, and by what
persons, the books of the Old and New Testament
were composed. If you reject the account without
making this examination, you reject it from prejudice,
not from reason.

There is, however, a short method of examining this
/ argument, which may, perhaps, make as great an im-
pression on your minds as any other. Three men, of
distinguished abilities, rose up at different times, and
attacked Christianity with every objection which theii

269] REPLY TO GIBBON. 87

malice could suggest or their learning could devise ; bu*
neither Celsus in the second century, nor Porphyry in
the third, nor the emperor Julian himself in the fourth
century, ever questioned the reality of the miracles re-
lated in the Gospels. Do but you grant us what these
men (who were more likely to know the truth of the
matter than you can be) granted to their adversaries,
and we will very readily let you make the most of the
magic, to which, as the last wretched shift, they Avere
forced to attribute them. We can find you men, in our
days, who, from the mixture of two colorless liquors,
will produce you a third as red as blood, or of any
other color you desire ; et dido citius, [quicker than
a word,] by a drop resembling water, will restore the
transparency ; they will make two fluids coalesce into
a solid body ; and from the mixture of liquors, colder
than ice, will instantly raise you a horrid explosion
and a tremendous flame. These, and twenty other
tricks, they will perform, without having been sent with
our Savior to Egypt to learn magic ; nay, with a bot-
tle or two of oil they will compose the undulations of
a lake ; and, by a little art, they will restore the func-
tions of life to a man who has been an hour or two
under water, or a day or two buried in the snow. But
in vain will these men, or the greatest magician that
Egypt ever saw, say to a boisterous sea, " Peace, be
still ;" in vain will they say to a carcass rotting in the
grave, " Come forth ;" the winds and the sea will not
obey them, and the putrid carcass will not hear them.
You need not suffer yourselves to be deprived of the
weight of this argument from its having been observed
that the fathers have acknowledged the supernatural
part of Paganism, since the fathers were in no condi-
23*

88 Watson's . 270

tion to detect a cheat which was supported both cy
ihe disposition of the people, and the power of the
ciTil magistrate ; and they were, from that inability,
forced to attribute to infernal agisncy what was too
cunningly contrived to be detected, and contrived for too
impious a purpose to be credited as the work of God.
With respect to prophecy, you may, perhaps, have
accustomed yourselves to consider it as originating ia
Asiatic enthusiasm, in Chaldean mystery, or the sub-
tle stratagem of interested priests, and have given
yourselves no more trouble concerning the predictions
of sacred, than concerning the oracles of Pagan his-
tory. Or, if you have ever cast a glance upon this sub-
ject, the dissensions of learned men concerning the
proper interpretation of the Revelation, and other dif-
ficult prophecies, may have made you rashly conclude
that all prophecies were equally unintelligible, and
more indebted for their accomplishment to a fortunate
concurrence of events, and the pliant ingenuity of the
expositor, than to the mspired foresight of the pro-
phet. In all that the prophets of the Old Testament
have delivered concemmg the destruction of particu-
lar cities, and the desolation of particular kingdoms,
you ma', see nothing but shrewd conjectures, which
any one acquainted with the history of the rise and
fall of empires, might certainly have made ; and as
you would not hold him for a prophet who should now
affirm that London or Paris would afford to future ages
a spectacle just as melancholy as that which we now'
contemplate, with a sigh, in the ruins of Agrigentum
or Palmyra, so you cannot persuade yourselves to be-
lieve that the denunciations of the prophets against
the haughty cities of Tyre or Babylon, for instance,

271] REPLY TO GIBBON. Q9

proceeded from the inspiration of the Deity. There
IS no doubt, that by some such general kind of reason-
ing, many are influenced to pay no attention to an ar-
gument which, if properly considered, carries with it
the strongest conriction.

Spinoza said that he would have broken his atheis-
tic system to pieces, and embraced, without repug-
nance, the ordinary faith of Christians, if he could
have persuaded himself of the resurrection of Laza-
rus from the dead ; and I question not that there are
many unbelievers who would relinquish their deistical
tenets, and receive the Gospel, if they could persuade
themselves that God had ever so far interfered in the
moral government of the world as to illumine the mind
of any one man with the knowledge of future events.
A miracle strikes the senses of the persons who see
It ; a prophecy addresses itself to the understandings
of those who behold its completion ; and it requires,
in many cases, some learning, in all some attention,
to judge of the correspondence of events with the pre-
dictions concerning them. No one can be convinced
that what Jeremiah and the other prophets foretold of
the fate of Babylon, that it should be besieged by the
Medes ; that it should be taken when her mighty men
were drunken, when her springs were dried up ; and
that it should become a pool of water, and should re-
main desolate for ever ; no one, I say, can be convinced
that ail these and other parts of the prophetic denun-
ciation have been minutely fulfilled, without spend-
ing some time in reading the accounts which profane
historians have delivered down to us concerning its
being taken by Cyrus; and which modern travelers
have given us of its present situation.

90 Watson's [273

Porphyry was so persuaded of the ccincidence be-
tween the prophecies of Daniel and the events, that
he was forced to affirm the prophecies were written
after the things prophesied had happened. Another
Porphyry has, in our days, been so astonished at the
correspondence between the prophecy concerning the
destruction of Jerusalem, as related by St. Matthew,
and the history of that event, as recorded by Josephus,
that, rather than embrace Christianity, he has ven-
tured (contrary to the faith of all ecclesiastical his-
tory, the opinion of the learned of all ages, and all the
rules of good criticism) to assert that St. Matthew-
wrote his Gospel afier Jerusalem had been taken and
destroyed by the Romans. You may, from these in-
stances, perceive the streng-th of the argument from
prophecy ; it has not been able indeed to vanquish the
prejudices of either the ancient or the modern Porphy-
ry ; but it has been able to compel them both to be
guilty of obvious falsehoods, which have nothing but
impudent assertions to support them. Some over zea-
lous interpreters of Scripture have found prophecies
in simple narrations, extended real predictions beyond
the times and circumstances to which they naturally
were applied, and perplexed their readers with a thou-
sand quaint allusions and allegorical conceits; this
proceeding has made men of sense pay less regard to
prophecy in general. There are some predictions, how-
ever, such as those concerning the present state of the
Jewish people, and the corruptions of Christianity,
which are now fulfilling in the world ; and which, if
you will take the trouble to examine them, you will
find of su ;h an extraordinary nature that you will not
p erhaps b esitate to refer them to God as their author j

273] REPLY TO GIBBON. 91

and if you once become persuaded of the truth of any
one miracle, or of the completion of any one prophecy,
you will resolve all your difficulties (concerning the
manner of God's interposition in the moral govern-
ment of our species, and the nature of the doctrines
contained in revelation) into your own inability fully
to comprehend the whole scheme of divine providence.
We are told, however, that the strangeness of the
narration, and the difficulty of the doctrines contained
in the New Testament, are not the only circumstances
which induce you to reject it; you have discovered,
you think, so many contradictions in the accounts
which the evangelists have given of the life of Christ,
that you are compelled to consider the whole as an
ill-digested and improbable story. You would not rea
son thus upon any other occasion; you would not re-
ject, as fabulous, the accounts given by Livy and Poli-
bius of Hannibal and the Carthaginians, though yoi:
should discover a difference betwixt them in severa.
points of little importance. You cannot compare the
history of the same events, as delivered by any two
historians, but you will meet with many circumstances
which, though mentioned by one, are either wholly
omitted, or differently related by the other ; and this
observation is peculiarly applicable to biographical
writings : but no one ever thought of disbelieving the
leading circumstances of the lives of Vitellius or Ves
pasian, because Tacitus and Suetonius did not in every
thing correspond in their accounts of these emperors.
And if the memoirs of the life and doctrines of M. de
Voltaire himself were, some twenty or thirty years af-
ter his death, to be delivered to the world by four of his
most intimate acquaintance, I do not apprehend that

92 Watson's [274

we should discredit tlie whole account of such an ex-
traordinary man, by reason of some slight inconsis-
tencies and contradictions, which the avowed enemies
of his name might chance to discover in the several
narrations. Though we should grant you, then, that
the evangelists had fallen into some trivial contradic-
tions in what they have related concerning the life of
Christ, yet you ought not to draw any other inference
from our concession than that they had not plotted
together, as cheats would nave done, in order to give
an unexceptionable consistency to their fraud. We are
not, however, disposed to make you any such conces-
sion ; we will rather show you the futility of your ge-
neral argument, by touching upon a few of the places
which you think are most liable to your censure.

You observe that neither Luke, nor Mark, nor John,
have mentioned the cruelty of Herod in murdering
the infants of Bethlehem ; and that no account is to
be found of this matter in Josephus, who wrote the
life of Herod; and therefore the fact recorded by
Matthew is not true. The concurrent testimony of
many independent writers concerning a matter of fact,
unquestionably adds to its probability ; but if nothintf
is to be received as true, upon the testimony of a sin-
gle author, we must give up some of the best writers,
and disbelieve some of the most interesting facts of
ancient history.

According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there was
only an interval of three months, you say, between
the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus ; from which
time, taking away the forty days of the temptation,
there will only remain about six weeks for the whole
period of his public ministry ; which lasted, however.

275J REPLY TO GIBBON. 93

according to St. John, at the least above three years.
Your objection, fairly stated, stands thus : Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, in writing the history of Jesus
Christ, mention the several events of his life, as fol-
lowing one another in continued succession, without
taking notice of the times in which they happened.
But is it a just conclusion, from their silence, to infei,
that there were really no intervals of time between the
transactions which they seem to have connected ?
Many instances might be produced, from the most
admired biographers of antiquity, in which events are
related as immediately consequent to each other,
which did happen at very distant periods : we have an
obvious example of this manner of writing in St.
Matthew, who connects the preaching of John the
Baptist with the return of Joseph from Egypt, though
we are certain that the latter event preceded the for-
mer by a great many years.

John has said nothing of the institution of the
Lord's Supper ; the other evangelists have said no-
thing of the washing of the disciples' feet. What
then ? are you not ashamed to produce these facts as
instances of contradiction? If omissions are con-
tradictions, look into the history of the age of Louis
XIV, or into the general history of M. de Voltaire, and
you will meet with a great abundance of contradictions.

John, in mentioning the discourses which Jesus
had with his mother and his beloved disciple, at the
time of his crucifixion, says that she, with Mary
Magdalene, stood near the cross. Matthew, on the
other hand, says that Mary Magdalene and the other
women were there, beholding afar off. This you
think a manifest contradiction ; and scoffingly inquire

94 Watson's [375

whether the women and the beloved disciple, which
were near the cross, could be the same with those
who stood far from the cross ? It is difficult not to
transgress the bounds of moderation and good man-
ners, in answering such sophistry. What ! have you
to learn that, though the evangelists speak of the cru-
cifixion as of one event, it was not accomplished in
one instant, but lasted several hours ? And why the
women, Avho were at a distance from the cross, might
not, during its continuance, draw near the cross ; or,
from being near the cross, might not move from the
cross, is more than you can explain to either us or
yourselves. And we take from you your only refuge,
by denying expressly that the different evangelists,
in their mention of the women, speak of the same
point of time.

The evangelists, you affirm, have fallen into gross
contradictions in their accounts of the appearances
by which Jesus manifested himself to his disciples,
after his resurrection from the dead; for Matthew
speaks of two, Mark of three, Luke of two, and John
of four. That contradictory propositions cannot be
true, is readily granted; and if you will produce the
place in which Matthew says that Jesus Christ ap-
peared tAvice, and no oftener^ it will be further granted
that he is contradicted by John in a very material part
o: his narration ; but till you do that, you must excuse
me if I cannot grant that the evangelists have contra-
dicted each other in this point ; for to common under-
standings, it is pretty evident that if Christ appeared
four times according to John's account, he must have
appeared twice according to that of Matthew and
Luke, and thrice according to that of Mark.

277] REPLY TO GIBBON. 95

The diflferent evangelists are not only accused of
contradicting each other, but Luke is said to have
contradicted himself; for in his Gospel he tells us,
that Jesus ascended into heaven from Bethany ; and
m the Acts of the Apostles, of which he is the reputed
author, he informs us that he ascended from Mount
Olivet. Your objection proceeds either from your
ignorance of geography, or your ill-will to Chris-
tianity ; and upon either supposition deserves our con-
tempt : %e pleased, however, to remember for the
future, that Bethany was not only the name of a town,
but of a district of Mount Olivet adjoining to the town.

From this specimen of the contradictions ascribed
to the historians of the life of Christ, you may judge
for yourselves what little reason there is to reject
Christianity upon their account ; and how sadly you
will be imposed upon (in a matter of more conse-
quence to you than any other) if you take every thing
for a contradiction which the uncandid adversaries of
Christianity think proper to call one.

Before I put an end to this address, I cannot help
taking notice of an argument by which some philo-
sophers have of late endeavored to overturn the whole
system of revelation ; and it is the more necessary
to give an answer to their objection, as it is become a
common subject of philosophical conversation, espe-
cially among those who have visited the continent.
The objection tends to invalidate, as is supposed, the
authority of Moses, by showing that the earth is much
older than it can be proved to be from his account
of the creation, and the Scripture chronology. We
contend, that six thousand years have not yet elapsed
since the creation ; and these philosophers contend,

24 Infidelity.

96 Watson's [2^8

that tney have indubitable proof of the earth's bein^
at the least fourteen thousand years old ; and they
complain that Moses hangs as a dead weight upon
them, and blunts all their zeal for inquiry.

The Canonico Recupero, who, it seems, is engaged
in writing the history of Mount jEtna, has discovered
a stratum of lava which flowed from that mountain,
according to his opinion, in the time of the second
Punic war, or about two thousand years ago ; this
stratum is not yet covered with soil sufficient for the
production of either corn or vines; it requires, then,
says the Canon, two thousand years at least to con-
vert a stratum of lava into a fertile field. In sinking
a pit near Jaci, in the neighborhood of JEtna, they
have discovered evident marks of seven distinct lavas,
one under the other; the surfaces of which are paral-
lel, and most of them covered with a thick bed ot
rich earth. Nov/, the eruption which formed the
lowest part of these lavas (if we may be allowed to
reason, says the Canon, from analogy) flowed from
the mountain at least fourteen thousand years ago.
It might be briefly answered to this objection, by de-
nying, that there is any thing in the history of Moses
repugnant to this opinion concerning the great anti-
quity of the earth ; for though the rise and progress of
arts and sciences, and the small multiplication of the
human species, render it almost to a demonstration
probable that man has not existed longer upon the
surface of this earth than according to the Mosaic ac-
count, yet that the earth itself was then created out
of nothing, when man was placed upon it, is not, ac-
cording to the sentiments of some philosophers, to be
proved from the original text of sacred Scripture : we

279] REPLY TO GIBBON. 97

might, I say, reply with these philosophers to this for-
midable objection of the Canon, by granting it in its
fullest extent; we are under no necessity, however,
of adopting their opinion, in order to show the weak-
ness of the Canon's reasoning. For, in the first place,
the Canon has not satisfactorily established his main
fact, that the lava in question is the identical lava
which Diodorus Siculus mentions to have flowed
from ^^tna in the second Carthaginian war; and, in
the second place, it may be observed, that the time
necessary for converting lava into fertile fields must
be very different, according to the different consisten-
cies of the lavas, and their different situations, with
respect to elevation or depression ; to their being ex-
posed to winds, rains, ind to other circumstances;
just as the time in which the heaps of iron slag
(which resembles lava) are covered with verdure, is
different at different furnaces, according to the nature
of the slag, and situation of the furnace ; and some-
thing of this kind is deducible from the account of the
Canon himself; since the crevices of this famous stra-
tum are really full of rich, good soil, and have pretty
larire trees growing in them.

But if all this should be thought not sufficient to
remove the objection, I will produce the Canon an
analogy in opposition to his analogy, and which is
founded on more certain facts. ^Etna and Vesuvius
resemble each other in the causes which produce
their eruptions, and in the nature of their lavas, and
in the time necessary to mellow them into soil fit f/r
vegetation ; or if there be any slight difference in this
respect, it is probably not greater than what subsists
between different lavas of the same mountain. This

98 watson'3

being admitted, which no philosopher will deny, the
Canon's analogy will prove just nothing at all, if we
can produce an instance of seven different lavas (with
interjacent strata of vegetable earth) which have
flowed from Mount Vesuvius within the space, not of
fourteen thousand, but of somewhat less than seven-
teen hundred years ; for then, according to our analo-
gy, a stratum of lava may be covered with vegetable
soil in about two hundred and fifty years, instead of
requiring two thousand for the purpose. The erup-
tion of Vesuvius which destroyed Herculaneum and
Pompeii, is rendered still more famous by the death
of Pliny, recorded by his nephew in his letter to Ta-
citus. This event happened in the year 79. It is not
then quite seventeen hundred years since Herculane-
um was swallowed up ; but we are informed by un-
questionable authority, that " the matter which covers
the ancient town of Herculaneum is not the produce
of one eruption only ; for there are evident marks that
the matter of six eruptions has taken its course over
that which lies immediately above the town, and was
the cause of its destruction. These strata are either
of lava or burnt matter, with veins of good soil be-
twixt them.''''* I will not add another word upon this
subject, except that the bishop of the diocese was not
much out in his advice to Canonico Recupero, to take
care not to make his mountain older than Moses ;
though it would have been full as well to have shut
his mouth with a reason, as to have stopped it with
the dread of an ecclesiastical censure.

* See Sir William Hamilton's Remarks upon the Nature of
the Soil of Naples and its Neighborhood, in the Philos. Truns
vol. 61, p. 7.

281] REPLY TO GIBBON. 99

You perceA-fc with what ease a little attention will
remove a great difficulty ; bat had we been able to say
nothing in explanation of this phenomenon, wc should
not have acted a very rational part in making our ig-
norance the foundation of our infidelity, or sufiering a
minute philosopher to rob us of our religion.

Your objections to revelation may be numerous;
you may find fault with the account which Moses has
given of the creation and the fall ; you may not be
able to get water enough for a universal deluge ; nor
room enough in the ark of Noah for all the ditferent
kinds of aerial and terrestrial animals ; you may be
dissatisfied with the command for sacrificing Isaac,
for plundering the Egyptians, and for extirpating the
Canaanites ; you may find fault with the Jewish eco-
nomy, for its ceremonies, its sacrifices, and its multi-
plicity of priests; you may object to the imprecations
in the Psalms, and think the immoralities of David a
fit subject for dramatic ridicUe; you may look upon
the partial promulgation of Christianity as an insuper-
able objection to its truth, and waywardly reject the
goodness of God toward yourselves, because you do
not comprehend how you have deserved it more than
others ; you may know nothing of the entrance of sin
and death into the world by one man's transgression ;
nor be able to comprehend the doctrine of the cross,
and of redemption by Jesus Christ : in short, if your
mind is so disposed, you may find food for your scep-
ticism in every page of the Bible, as well as in every
appearance of nature ; and it is not in the power of
any person, but yourselves, to clear up your doubts.
You must read, and you must think for yourselves ;
and you must do both with temper, with candor, and
24*

rOO Watson's

with care. Infidelity is a rank weed ; it is nurtured
by our vices, and cannot be plucked up as easily as it
may be planted. Your difficulties with respect to re
velation may have first arisen from your own reflec-
tion on the religious indifierence of those whom, from
your earliest infancy, you have been accustomed ta
revere and imitate : domestic irreligion may have
made you a willing hearer of libertine conversation ;
and the uniform prejudices of the world may have
finished the business, at a very early age, and left you
to wander through life, without a principle to direct
your conduct, and to die without hope. We are far
from wishing you to trust the word of the clergy for
the truth of your religion ; we beg of you to examine
it to the bottom, to try it, to prove it, and not to nold
it fast unless you find it good. Till you are disposed
to undertake this task, it becomes you to consider, with
great seriousness and attention, whether it can be for
your interest to esteem a few witty sarcasms, or meta-
physic subtleties, or ignorant misrepresentations, or
unwarranted assertions, as unanswerable arguments
against revelation; and a very slight reflection will
convince you that it will certainly be for your reputa-
tion to employ the flippancy of your rhetoric, and the
poignancy of your ridicule, upon any subject rather
than upon the subject of religion.

I take my leave with recommending to your notice
the advice which Mr. Locke gave to a young man
who was desirous of becoming acquainted with the
doctrines of the Christian religion:—" Study the holy
Scripture, especially the New Testament : therem arc
contained the words of eternal life. It has God for
its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any
mixture of error for its matter." I am, &c.

REPI^IT TOPAIWE?

^^<2>ie»<2><s^ 2^<s>m "^mm ^^^^^^

LETTERS TO THOMAS PAINE,

AUTHOR OP

Th.e *' Age of Reason,'" Part tlie Second.

BY R. WATSON, D. D. F. R. S.

Bisbop of Landaff, and Professor of Divinity in tlie Univeraity of
Cambridge.

m^^i**^ ^<^ ^^E^^«

LETTER I.

Sir: — I have lately met with a book of yours enu-
lled " The Age of Reason, part the second, being an
investigation of true and of fabulous theology ;" and I
think it not inconsistent with my station, and the duty
I owe to society, to trouble you and the world with
some observations on so extraordinary a performance.
Extraordinary I esteem it, not from any novelty in the
objections which you have produced against revealed
religion, (for I find little or no novelty in them,) but
from the zeal with which you labor to disseminate
your opinions, and from the confidence with which
you esteem them true. You perceive by this that I
give you credit for your sincerity, how much-soever I
may question your wisdom, in writing in such a man-
ner, on such a subject; and I have no reluctance in
acknowledging that you possess a considerable share
of energy of language, and acuteness of investigation ;
though I must be allowed to lament that these talents
have not been applied in a manner more useful to nu-
man kind, and more creditable to yourself.

I begin with your preface. You therein state that
you had long had an intention of publishing your
thoughts upon religion, but that you had originally re-
served it to a later period in life — I hope there is no

4 WATS dn's [286

want of charity in saying, that it would have been
fortunate for the Christian world had your life been
terminated before you had fulfilled your intention. In
accomplishing your purpose, you will have unsettled
the faith of thousands ; rooted from the minds of the
unhappy virtuous all their comfortable assurances of a
future recompense ; have annihilated in the minds of
the flagitious all their fears of future punishment; you
will have given the reins to the domination of every
passion, and have thereby contributed to the introduc-
tion of the public insecurity, and of the private unhap-
piness, usually and almost necessarily accompanying
a state of corrupt morals.

No one can think worse of confession to a priest
and subsequent absolution, as practiced in the church
of Rome, than I do ; but I cannot, with you, attribute
the guillotine massacres to that cause. Men's minds
were not prepared, as you suppose, for the commission
of all manner of crimes, by any doctrines of the church
of Rome, corrupted as I esteem it, but by their not
thoroughly believing even that religion. What may
not society expect from those who shall imbibe the
principles of your book?

A fever, which you and those about you expected
would prove mortal, made you remember, with re-
newed satisfaction, that you had written the former
part of your Age of Reason — and you know, therefore,
you say, by experience, the conscientious trial of your
own principles. I admit this declaration to be a proof
of the sincerity of your persuasion, but I cannot admit
it to be any proof of the truth of your principles. What
is conscience ? Is it, as has been thought, an internal
monitor implanted in us by the Supreme Being, and

287] REPLY TO PAINE. 5

dictating to us, on all occasions, what is right or
wrong? Or is it merely our own judgment of the mo-
ral rectitude or turpitude of our own actions ? I take
the word (with Mr. Locke) in the latter, as the only
intelligible sense. Now, who sees not that our judg-
ments of virtue and vice, right and wrong, are not al-
ways formed from an enlightened and dispassionate
use of our reason, in the investigation of truth? They
are more generally formed from the nature of the reli-
gion we profess ; from the quality of the civil govern-
ment under which we live ; from the general manners
'>f the age, or the particular manners of the persons
with whom we associate ; from the education we have
had in our youth ; from the books we have read at a
more advanced period ; and from other accidental
causes. Who sees not that, on this account, conscience
may be conformable or repugnant to the law of nature ?
may be certain, or doubtful — and that it can be no cri-
terion of moral rectitude, even when it is certain, be-
cause the certainty of an opinion is no proof of its be-
ing a right opinion? A man may be certainly per-
suaded of an error in reasoning, or an untruth in mat-
ters of fact. It is a maxim of every law, human and
divine, that a man ought never to act in opposition to
his conscience, but it will not from thence follow that
he will, in obeying the dictates of his conscience on
all occasions, act right. An inquisitor, who burns Jews
and heretics ; a Robespierre, who massacres innocent
and harmless women ; a robber, who thinks that all
tnmgs ought to be in common, and that a state of pro-
perty is an unjust infringement of natural liberty —
these, and a thousand perpetrators of different crimes,
may all follow the dictates of conscience ; and may, at

WATSON'S

'"288

liie real or supposed approach of death, remember,
" with renewed satisfaction," the worst of their trans-
actions, and experience, without dismay " a conscien-
tious trial of their principles." But this, their conscien-
tious composure, can be no proof to others of the rec-
titude of their principles, and ought to be no pledge to
themselves of their innocence in adhering to them.

I have thought fit to make this remark, with a view
of suggesting to you a consideration of great impor-
tance— whether you have examined calmly, and ac-
cording to the best of your ability, the arguments by
which the truth of revealed religion may, in the judg-
ment of learned and impartial men, be established'?
You will allow that thousands of learned and impar-
tial men, (I speak not of priests, who, however, are, I
trust, as learned and impartial as yourself, but of lay-
men of the most splendid talents) — you will allow,
that thousands of these, in all ages, have embraced
revealed religion as true. Whether these men have all
been in an error, enveloped in the darkness of igno-
rance, shackled by the chains of superstition, whilst
you and a few others have enjoyed light and liberty, is
a question I submit to the decision of your readers.

If you have made the best examination you can, and
yet reject revealed religion as an imposture, I pray
that God may pardon what I esteem your error. And
whether you have made this examination or not, does
not become me or any man to determine. That Gos-
pel which you despise, has taught me this modera-
tion ; it has said to me — " Who art thou that judgesl
another man's servant ? To his own master he stand-
eth or falleth." I think that you are in an error ; but
vhether that error be to you a vincible or an invincible

239] REPLY TO PAINE. 7

error, I presume not to determine. I know indeed where
it is said, " that the preaching of the cross is to them
tliat perish foolishness, and that if the Gospel be hid,
It is hid to them that are lost." The consequence of
your unbelief must be left to the just and merciful
judgment of Him who alone knoweih the mechanism
and the liberty of our understandings ; the origin of
our opinions ; the strength of our prejudices ; the ex-
cellencies and the defects of our reasoning faculties.
I shall, designedly, write this and the following let-
ters in a popular manner; hoping that thereby they
may stand a chance of being perused by that class of
readers for whom your work seems to be particularly
calculated, and who are the most likely to be injured
by it. The really learned are in no danger of being in-
fected by the poison of infidelity ; they will excuse me,
therefore, for having entered as little as possible into
deep disquisitions concerning the authenticity of the
Bible. The subject has been so learnedly and so fre-
quently handled by other writers, that it does not want
(I had almost said, it does not admit) any further proof.
And it is the more necessary to adopt this mode of an-
swering your book, because you disclaim all learned
appeals to other books, and undertake to prove, from
the Bible itself, that it is unworthy of credit. I hope
to show, from the Bible itself, the direct contrary. But
m case any of your readers should think that you had
not put forth all your strength, by not referring for
proof of your opinion to ancient authors ; lest they
should expect that all ancient authors are in your fa-
vor, I will venture to affirm, that had you made a learned
appeal to all the ancient books in the world, sacred or
profane, Christian, Jewish, or Pagan, instead of les-

25 Infidelity.

8 WATSON'a [290

sening, they would have established the credit and au-
thority of the Bible as the word of God.

Q,uitting your preface, let us proceed to the work
itself, in which there is mucn repetition, and a defect
of proper arrangement. I will follow your track, how-
ever, as nearly as I can. The first question you pro-
pose for consideration is — " Whether there is suffi-
cient authority for believing the Bible to be the Word
of God, or whether there is not?" You determine this
question in the negative, upon what you are pleased to
call moral evidence. You hold it impossible that the
Bible can be the Word of God, because it is therein
said^ that the Israelites destroyed the Canaanites by
the express command of God ; and to believe the Bible
to be true, we must, you affirm, unbelieve all our be-
lief of the moral justice of God ; for wherein, you ask,
could crying or smiling infants offend ? I am astonished
that so acute a reasoner should attempt to disparage
the Bible, by bringing forward this exploded and fre-
quently refuted objection of Morgan, Tindal, and Bo-
lingbroke. You profess yourself to be a deist, and to
believe that there is a God, who created the universe,
and established the lav/s of nature, by which it is sus-
lamed in existence. You profess that, from the con-
templation of the works of God, you derive a knowledge
of his attributes; and you reject the Bible, because it
ascribes to God things inconsistent (as you suppose)
with the attributes which you have discovered to be-
long to him ; in particular, you think it repugnant to
his moral justice, that he should doom to destruction
the crying or smiling infants of the Canaanites. Why
do you not maintain it to be repugnant to his moral
justice that he should suffer crying or smiling infants

291] REPLY TO PAINE. 9

to be swallowed up by an earthquake, drowned by an
inundation, consumed by fire, starved by a famine, or
destroyed by pestilence? The word of God is in per-
fect harmony with his work ; crying or smiling infants
are subjected to death in both. We believe that the
earth, at the express command of God, opened her
mouth, and swallowed up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram,
with their wives, their sons, and their little ones. This
you esteem so repugnant to God's moral justice, that
you spurn, as spurious, the book in which the circum-
stance is related. When Catania, Lima, and Lisbon,
were severally destroyed by earthquakes, men, with
their wives, their sons, and their little ones, Avere swal-
lowed up alive — why do you not spurn as spurious the
book of nature, in Avhich this fact is certainly Avritten,
and from the perusal of which you infer the moral jus-
tice of God? You Avill, probably, reply that the evils
which the Canaanites suffered from the express com-
mand of God, were different from those which were
brought on mankind by the operation of the lavv^s of
nature. Different ! in what ? Not in the magnitude
of the evil — not in the subjects of sufferance — not in
the author of it — for my philosophy, at least, instructs
me to believe that God not only primarily formed, but
that he has, through all ages, executed the laws of na-
ture ; and that he will, through all eternity, administer
them for the general happiness of his creatures, whe-
ther we can, on every occasion, discern that end or not.
I am far from being guilty of the impiety of ques-
tioning the existence of the moral justice of God, as
proved either by natural or revealed religion ; what I
contend for is briefly this — that you have no right, in
fairness of reasoning, to urge any apparent deviatioa

10 Watson's [292

from moral justice as an argument against revealed
religion, because you do not urge an equally apparent
deviation from it, as an argument against natural re-
ligion : you reject the former, and admit the latter
without adverting that, as to your objection, they mus<
stand or fall together.

As to the Canaanites, it is needless to enter into any
proof of the depraved state of their morals ; they were
a wicked people in the time of Abraham, and they,
even then, were devoted to destruction by God; but
their iniquity was not then full. In the time of Closes
they were idolaters, sacrificers of their own crying or
smiling infants ; devourers of human flesh ; addicted
to unnatural lusts ; immersed in the filthiness of all
manner of vice. Now, I ihink it will be impossible to
prove that it was a proceeding contrary to God's mo-
ral justice, to exterminate so wicked a people. He
made the Israelites the executors of his vengeance ;
and, in doing this, he gave such an evident and terri-
ble proof of his abomination to vice, as could not fail
to strike the surrounding nations Avith astonishment
and terror, and to impress on the minds of the Israelites
what they were to expect if they followed the exam-
ple of the nations whom he commanded them to cut
off. " Ye shall not commit any of these abominations —
that the land spue not you out also, as it spued out the
nations before you." How strong and descriptive this
language ! the vices of the inhabitants were so abomi-
nable, that the very land was sick of them, and forced
to vomit them forth, as the stomach disgorges a dead-
ly poison.

I have often wondered what could be the reason that
men, not destitute of talents, should be desirous of un-

293] REPLY TO PAINE. 11

derraining the authority of revealed religion, and stu-
dious in exposing, with a malignant and illiberal exul-
tation, every little difficulty attending the Scriptures,
to popular animadversion and contempt. I am not will-
ing to attribute this strange propensity to what Plato
attributed the atheism of his time — to profligacy of
manners — to affectation of singularity — to gross igno-
rance, assuming the semblance of deep research and
superior sagacity. I had rather refer it to an impro-
priety of judgment respecting the manners and men-
tal acquirements of human kind in the first ages of the
world. Most unbelievers argue as if they thought that
man, in remote and rude antiquity, in the very birth
and infancy of our species, had the same distinct con-
ceptions of one, eternal, invisible, incorporeal, infinite-
ly wise, powerful, and good God, which they them-
selves have now. This I look upon as a great mistake,
and a pregnant source of infidelity. Human kind, by
long experience; by the institutions of civil society;
by the cultivation of arts and science ; by, as I believe,
divine instruction actually given to some, and tradi-
tionally communicated to all, is in a far more distin-
guished situation, as to the powers of the mind, than
it was in the childhood of the world. The history of
man is the history of the providence of God ; who,
willing the supreme felicity of all his creatures, has
adapted his government to the capacity of those who,
in difierent ages, were the subjects of it. The history
of any one nation, throughout all ages, and that of all
nations in the same age, are but separate parts of one
great plan which God is carrying on for the moral me-
lioration of mankind. But who can comprehend the
whole of this immense design? The shortness of life.
25*

12 Watson's [294

the weakness of our faculties, the inadequacy of our
means of information, conspire to make it impossible
for us, worms of the earth, insects of an hour, com-
pletely to understand any one of its parts. No man,
who well weighs the subject, ought to be surprised,
that in the histories of ancient times many things
should occur foreign to our manners, the propriety and
necessity of which we cannot clearly apprehend.

It appears incredible to many, that God Almighty
should have had colloquial intercouse with our first
parents ; that he should have contracted a kind of
friendship for the patriarchs, and entered into cove-
nants with them; that he should have suspended the
laws of nature in Egypt ; should have been so appa-
rently partial as to become the God and governor of
one particular nation ; and should have so far de-
meaned himself, as to give to that people a burden-
some ritual of worship, statutes and ordinances, many
of which seem to be beneath the dignity of his atten-
tion, unimportant and impolitic. I have conversed
with many deists, and have always found that the
strangeness of these things was the only reason for
their disbelief of them : nothing similar has happened
in their time; they will not, therefore, admit that
these events have really taken place at any time. As
well might a child, when arrived at a state of man-
hood, contend that he never either stood in need of
or experienced the fostering care of a mother's kind-
ness, the wearisome attention of his nurse, or the in-
struction and discipline of his schoolmaster. The
Supreme Being selected one family from an idola-
trous world; nursed it up, by various acts of his pro-
vidence, into a great nation; communicated to that

295] REPLY TO PAINE. 13

nation a knowledge of his holiness, justice, mercy,
power, and wisdom ; disseminated them at various
times, through every part of the earth, that they might
be a " leaven to leaven the whole lump ;" that they
might assure all other nations of the existence of one
supreme God, the creator and preserver of the world,
the only proper object of adoration. With what rea-
son can we expect, that what was done to one nation,
not out of any partiality to them, but for the general
good, should be done to ail? That the mode of in-
struction, which was suited to the infancy of the
world, should be extended to the maturity of its man-
hood, or to the imbecility of its old age ? I own to you,
that when I consider how nearly man, in a savage
state, approaches to the brute creation, as to intellec-
tual excellence, and when I contemplate his misera-
ble attainments, as to the knowledge of God, in a ci-
vilized state, when he has had no divine instruction
on the subject, or when that instruction has been for-
gotten, (for all men have known something of God
from tradition,) I cannot but admire the wisdom and
goodness of the Supreme Being, in having let him-
self down to our apprehensions : in having given to
mankind, in the earliest ages, sensible and extraordi-
nary proofs of liis existence and attributes ; in having
made the Jewish and Christian dispensations medi-
ums to convey to all men, through all ages, that know-
ledge concerning himself which he has vouchsafed
to give immediately to the first. I own it is strange,
very strange, that he should have made an immediate
manifestation of himself in the first ages of the world;
but what is there that is not strange ? It is strange
that you and I are here — that there is water, and

M WATSON'S [296

earth, and air, and fire — that there is a sun, and moon,
and stars — that there is generation, corruption, repro-
duction. I can account ultimately for none of these
things, without recurring to Him who made every
thing. I also am his workmanship, and look up to
him with hope of preservation through all eternity ; I
adore him for his word as well as for his work : his
work I cannot comprehend, but his word has assured
me of all that I am concerned to know — that he has
prepared everlasting happiness for those who love and
obey him. This you will call preachment — I will have
done with it ; but the subject is so vast, and the plan
of providence, in my opinion, so obviously wise and
good, that I can never think of it without having my
mind filled Aviih reverence, admiration and gratitude.
In addition to the moral evidence (as you are pleas-
ed to think it) against the Bible, you threaten, in the
progress of your work, to produce such other evidence
as even a priest cannot deny. A philosopher in search
of truth, forfeits with me all claim to candor and im-
partiality, when he introduces railing for reasoning,
vulgar and illiberal sarcasm in the room of argument.
I will not imitate the example you set me : but ex-
amine what you shall produce with as much coolness
and respect as if you had given the priests no provo-
cation ; as if you were a man of the most unblemished
character, subject to no prejudices, actuated by no bad
designs, nor liable to have abuse retorted upon you
with success.

LETTER II.

Before you commence your grand attack upon th«

297] REPLY TO PAINl]. 15

Bible, you wish to establish a difference between the
evidence necessary to prove the authenticity of the
Bible, and that of any other ancient book. I am not
surprised at your anxiety on this head ; for all writers
on the subject have agreed in thinking that St. Aus-
tin reasoned well, when, in vindicating the genuine-
ness of the Bible, he asked — " What proofs have we
that the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and
Other profane authors, were written by those whose
name they bear; unless it be that this has been an
opinion generally received at all times, and by all
those who have lived since the authors ?" This wri-
ter was convinced that the evidence which establish-
ed the genuineness of any profane book, Avould esta-
blish that of the sacred book ; and I profess myself to
be of the same opinion, notwithstanding what you
have advanced to the contrary.

In this part your ideas seem to me to be confused ;
I do not say that you designedly jumble together
mathematical science and historical evidence ; the
knowledge acquired by demonstration, and the proba-
bility derived from testimony. You know but one
ancient book that authoritatively challenges universal
consent and belief, and that is Euclid's Elements. If
I were disposed to make frivolous objections, I should
say that even Euclid's Elements had not met with
universal consent ; that there had been men, both in
ancient and modern times, who had questioned the
intuitive evidence of some of his axioms, and denied
the justness of some of his demonstrations ; but, ad-
mitting the truth, I do not see the pertinency of your
observation. You are attempting to subvert the au-
thenticity of the Bible, and you tell us that Euclid's

16 WATsoN^g [298

Elements are certainly true. What then? Does.:
follow that the Bible is certainly false ? The most
illiterate scrivener does not want to be informed that
the examples in his Arithmetic are proved by a differ-
ent kind of reasoning from that by Avhich he per-
suades himself to believe, that there was such a person
as Henry VI [I, or that there is such a city as Paris.

It may be of use, to remove this confusion in your
argument to state distinctly the difference between
the genuineness and the authenticity of a book. A
genuine book is that which was written by the per-
son whose name it bears, as the author of it. An
authentic book is that which relates matters of fact,
as they really happened. A book may be genuine
without being authentic ; and a book may be authen-
tic, without being genuine. The books written by
Richardson and Fielding are genuine books, though
the' histories of Clarissa and Tom Jones are fables
The history of the Island of Formosa is a genuine
book; it was written by Psalmanazar ; but it is not an
authentic book; (though it was long esteemed a«
such, and translated into different languages ;) for the
author, in the latter part of his life, took shame to
himself for having imposed on the world, and con-
fessed that it was a mere romance. Anson's Voyage
may be considered as an authentic book ; it probably con-
tains a true narration of the principal events recorded
m it ; but it is not a genuine book, having not been writ
ten by Walters, to w^hom it is ascribed, but by Robins,

This distinction between the genuineness and au-
thenticity of a book, w^U assist us in detecting the fal
lacy of an argument, which you state with great
confidence in the part of your work now under con-

2991 ~ REPLY TO PAINE. 17

sideration^ and which you frequently allude to, in
other parts, as conclusive evidence against the truth
of the Bible. Your arguments stand thus — If it be
found that the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, and
Samuel, were not written by Moses, Joshua, and Sa-
muel, every part of the authority and authenticity
of these books is gone at once. I presume to think
otherwise. The genuineness of those books (in the
judgment of those who say that they were written
by these authors) will certainly be gone ; but their
authenticity may remain : they may still contain a true
account of real transactions, though the names of the
Avjiters of them should be found to be different from
what they are generally esteemed to be.

Had, indeed, Moses said that he wrote the first five
books of the Bible ; and had Joshua and Samuel said
that they wrote the books which are respectively at-
tributed to them ; and had it been found that Moses,
Joshua, and Samuel, did not write these books ; then,
I grant, the authority of the whole would have been
gone at once ; these men would have been found liars,
as to the genuineness of these books ; and this proof
of their want of veracity, in one point, would have
invalidated their testimony in every other ; these books
would have been justly stigmatized, as neither ge-
nuine nor authentic.

A history may be true, though it should not only be
ascribed to a wrong author, but though the author of it
should not be known ; anonymous testimony does not
destroy the reality of facts, whether natural or miracu-
lous. Had lord Clarendon published his History of
the Rebellion, without prefixing his name to it ; or
liad the Historv of Titus Livius come down to us

^S Watson's [300

under the name of Valerius Flaccus, or Valerius
Maximus; the facts mentioned in these histories
would have been equally certain.

As to your assertion, that the miracles recorded in
Tacitus, and in other profane historians, are quite as
Avell authenticated as those of the Bible— it, being a
mere assertion, destitute of proof, may be properly
answered by a contrary assertion. I take the liberty
then to say, that the evidence for the miracles recorded
m the Bible is, both in kind and in degree, so greatly
superior to that for the prodigies mentioned by Livy,
or the miracles related by Tacitus, as to justify us in
giving credit to the one as the work of God, and in
withholding it from the other as the effect of supersti-
tion and imposture. This method of derogating from
the credibility of Christianity, by opposing to the
miracles of our Savior the tricks of ancient impos-
tors, seems to have originated with Hierocles in the
fourth century; and it has been adopted by unbe-
lievers from that time to this ; with this difference,
.ndeed, tnat the heathens of the third and fourth cen-
tury admitted that Jesus wrought miracles ; but lest
that admission should have compelled them to aban-
don their gods and become Christians, they said that
their Apolonius, their Apideius, their Aristeas, did
as great : whilst modern deists deny the fact of Jesus
having ever wrought a miracle. ' And they have
some reason for this proceeding; they are sensible
that the Gospel miracles are so different, in all their
circumstances, from those related in pagan story, that
if they admit them to have been performed, they must
admit Christianity to be true ; hence they have fabri-
cated a kind of deistical axiom—that no human testi-

301] REPLY TO PAINE. 19

mony can establish the credibility of a miracle. —
This, though it has been a hundred limes refuted, is
still insisted upon, as if its truth had never been ques-
»ioned, and could not be disproved.

You " proceed to examine the authenticity of the
Bible ; and you begin, you say, with what are called
the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Your intention, you
profess, is to show that these books are spurious, and
that Moses is not the author of them ; and still far-
ther, that they were not written in the time of Moses,
nor till several hundred years afterwards ; that they
are no other than an attempted history of the life of
Moses, and of the times in which he is said to have
lived, and also of times prior thereto, written by some
very ignorant and stupid pretender to authorship, se-
veral hundred years after the death of Moses." In
this passage the utmost force of your attack on the
authority of the five books of Moses is clearly stated.
You are not the first who has started this difficulty ;
it is a difficulty, indeed, of modern date; having not
been heard of, either in synagogue or out of it, till
the tweiflh century. About that time Aben Ezra, a
Jew of great erudition, noticed some passages (the
same that you have brought forward) in the first five
books of the Bible, Avhich he thought had not been
written by Moses, but inserted by some person after
the death of Moses. But he was far from maintain-
ing, as you do, that these books were written by some
ignorant and stupid pretender to authorship, many
hundred years after the death of Moses. Hobbes con-
tends that the Books of Moses are so called, not from
their having been written by Moses, but from their

2Q Infideliti^

20 Watson's 302

containing an account of Moses. Spinoza supported
the same opinion ; and Le Clerc, a very able theolo-
gical critic of the last and present century, once en-
tertained the same notion. You see that this fancy
has had some patrons before you ; the merit or the de-
merit, the sagacity or the temerity of having asserted
that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, is not
entirely yours. Le Clerc, indeed, you must not boast
of. When his judgment was matured by age, he was
ashamed of w^hat he had written on the subject in his
younger years ; he made a public recantation of his
error, by annexing to his commentary on Genesis a
Latin dissertation, concerning Moses, the author of
the Pentateuch, and his design in composing it. If
in your future life you should chance to change your
opinion on the subject, it will be an honor to your
character to emulate the integrity and to imitate the
example of Le Clerc. The Bible is not the only
book which has undergone the fate of being reprobat-
ed as spurious, after it had been received as genuine
and authentic for many ages. It has been maintained
that the history of Herodotus was written in the time
of Const ant in e ; and that the Classics are forgeries of
the thirteenth or fourteenth century These extrava-
gant reveries amused the world at the time of their
publication, and have long since sunk into oblivion.
You esteem all prophets to be such lying rascals, that
I dare not predict the fate of your book.

Before you produce your main objections to the
genuineness of the books of Moses, you assert —
"That there is no affirmative evidence that Moses is
the author of them." What ! no affirmative evidence ?
In the eleventh century Maimonides drew up a con-

303] REPLY TO PAINE. 21

fession of fakn for the Jews, which all of them at this
day admit ; it consists only of thirteen articles, and two
of them have respect to Moses ; one affirming the
authenticity, the other the genuineness of his books.
The doctrine and prophecy of Moses is true. The law
that we have was given by Moses. This is the faitli
of the Jews at present, and has been their faith ever
since the destruction of their city and temple ; it was
their faith at the lime when the authors of the New
Testament wrote ; it was their faith during their cap-
tivity in Babylon ; in the time of their kings and
judges ; and no period can be shown, from the age of
Moses to the present hour, in which it was not their
faith. Is this no affirmative evidence ? I cannot de-
sire a stronger. Josephus, in his book against Appi-
on^ writes thus — " We have only two and twenty
books which are to be believed as of divine authority,
and which comprehend the history of all ages ; five
belong to Moses, which contain the original of man
and the tradition of the succession of generations,
down to his death, which takes in a compass of about
three thousand years." Do you consider this as no
affirmative evidence ? Why should I mention Juvenal
speaking of the volume which Moses had written?
Why enumerate a long list of profane authors, all
bearing testimony to the fact of Moses being the lead-
er and the law-giver of the Jewish nation? And if a
law-giver, surely a writer of the laws. But what says
the Bible ? In Exodus it says — "Moses wrote all the
words of the Lord, and took the book of the covenant,
and read in the audience of the people." — In Deuter-
onomy it says — " And it came to pass, when Moses
had made an end of writing the words of this law in

22 Watson's [304

a book, until they were finished, (this surely imports
the finishing of a laborious work,) that Moses com-
manded the Levites, which bear the ark of the cove-
nani of the Lord, sayin^:, Take this book of the law
and p-it it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the
liord your God. that it may be there for a witness
against thee." This is said in Deuteronomy, which
is a kind of repetition or abridgment of the four pre-
ceding books; and it is well known that the Jews
gave the name of the law to the first five books of the
Old Testament. What possible doubt can there be
that Moses wrote the books in question? I could ac-
cumulate many other passages from the Scriptures to
this purpose ; but if what I have advanced will not con-
vince you that there is affirmative evidence, and of the
strongest kind, for Moses being the author of these
books, nothing that I can advance will convince you.
What if I should grant all you undertake to prove,
(the stupidity and ignorance of the writer excepted?)
What if I should admit that Samuel or Ezra, or
some other learned Jew, composed those books from
public records, many years after the death of Moses ?
Will it follow that there was no truth in them ? Ac-
cording to my logic, it will only follow that they
are not genuine books; every fact recorded in them
may be true, whenever or by whomsoever they were
written. It cannot be said that the Jews had no pub-
ic records; the Bible furnishes abundance of proof to
the contrary. T by no means admit that these books,
as to the main part of them, were not written by Mo-
ses ; but I do contend, that a book may contain a true
history, though we knew not the author of it, or thougli
we may be mistaken in ascribing it to a wrong author*

305] REPLY TO PAINE. 23

The first argument you produce against Moses be-
ing the author of these books is so old, that I do not
know its original author ; and it is so miserable a one,
that I wonder you should adopt it. " These books
cannot be written by Moses, because they are wrote
in the third person — it is always, the Lord said unto
Moses, or Moses said unto the Lord. This, you say,'*
is the style and manner that historians use in speak-
ing of the persons whose lives and actions they are
writing." This observation is true, but it does not
extend far enough ; for this is the style and manner
not only of historians Avriling of other persons, but of
eminent men, such as Xenophon and Josephiis, writ-
ing of themselves. If General Washingto7i should
write the history of the American War, and should,
from his great modesty, speak of himself in the third
person, would you think it reasonable that, two or
three thousand years hence, any person should, on
that account, contend that the history was not true?
Ccesar writes o{ himself in the third person. It
is always, Csesar made a speech, or a speech was
made to Csesar, Csesar crossed the Rhine, Csesar in-
vaded Britain ; but every school-boy knows that this
circumstance cannot be adduced as a serious argu-
ment against Csesar's being the author of his own
Commentaries.

But Moses, you urge, cannot be the author of the
book of Numbers, because he says of himself, " that
Moses was a very meek man, above all the men that
were on the face of the earth." If he said this of him-
self, he was, as you say, " a vain and arrogant cox-
comb (such is your phrase) and unworthy of credit —
and if he did not say it, the books are without authorx-
26*

24 WATSONS [306

ty." This your dilemma is perfectly narmless; it has
not a horn to hurt the weakest log-ician. If Moses did
not write this little verse, if it was inserted by Samuel,
or any of his countrymen, who knew his character and
revered his memory, will it follow that he did not write
any other part of the book of Numbers? Or if he did
not write any part of the book of Numbers will it fol-
low that he did not write any of the oiher books of
which he is usually reputed the author? And if he did
write this of himself, he was justified by the occasion
which extorted from him this commendation. Had ihis
expression been written in a modern style and manner
it would probably have given you no offence. For who
would be so fastidious as to find fault with an illustrious
man, who, being calumniated by his nearest relations,
as guilty of pride and fond of power, should vindicate his
character by saying — my temper was naturally as meek
and unassuming as that of any man upon earth ? There
•ire occasions in which a modest man, who speaks truly,
may speak proudly of himself, without forfeiting his
general character; and there is no occasion which
either more requires, or more excuses this conduct,
than when he is repelling the foul and envious asper-
sions of those who both knew his character and had
experienced his kindness ; and in that predicament
stood Aaron and Miriam, the accusers of Moses. You
yourself have probably felt the sting of calumny, and
have been anxious to remove the impression. 1 do not
call you a vain and arrogant coxcomb for vindicating
your character, vv'hen in the latter part of this very
work you boast, I hope truly, " the man does not exist
that can say I have persecuted him, or £.ny man, or any
set of men, in the American revolution, or in the Frenci

307] REPLY TO PAINE. 25

revolution ; or that I have in any case returned evil for
evil." I know not what kings and priests may say to
this : you may not have returned to them evil ibr evil,
because they never, I believe, did you any harm ; but
you have done them all the harm you could, and that
without provocation.

I think it needless to notice your observation upon
■what you call the dramatic style of Deuteronomy; it
is an ill-founded hypothesis. You might as well ask
where the author of Caesar's Commentaries got the
speeches of Caesar, as where the author of Deuterono-
my got the speeches of Moses. But your argument —
that Moses was not the' author of Deuteronomy, be-
cause the reason given in that book for the observation
of the Sabbath is different from that given in Exodus,
merits a reply.

You need not be told that the very name of this book
imports, in Greek, a repetition of a law; and that the
Hebrew doctors have called it by a v.'ord of the same
meaning. In the fifth verse of the first chapter it is
said in our Bibles, " Moses began to declare this law ;"
but the Hebrew words, more properly translated, im-
port that " Moses began, or determined to explain the
law." This is no shift of mine to get over a difficulty ;
the words are so rendered in most of the ancient ver-
sions, and by Fagius, Valablus, and Le Clerc, men
eminently skilled in the Hebrew language. This re-
petition and explanation of the law was a wise and
benevolent proceeding in Moses: that those who were
either not born, or were mere infants, when it was first
(forty years before) delivered in Horeb, might have an
opportunity of knowing it; especially as Moses their
leader was so soon to be taken from them, and they

28 Watson's [308

were about to be settled in the midst of nations given
to idolatry and sunk in vice. Now, where is the won-
der, that some variations, and some additions, should
be made to a law, when a legislator thinks fit to re-
publish it many years after its first promulgation ?

With respect to the Sabbath, the learned are divided
in opinion concerning its origin ; some contending that
it was sanctified from the creation of the world ; that
it was observed by the patriarchs before the flood ; that
It was neglected by the Israelites during their bond-
age in Egypt; revived on the falling of manna in the
wilderness; and enjoined as a positive law at Sinai.
Others esteem its institution to have been no older
than the age of Moses; and argue, that what is said
of the sanctification of the Sabbath in the book of Ge-
nesis, is said by way of anticipation. There may be
truth in both these accounts. To me it is probable that
the memory of the creation was handed down from
Adam to all his posterity ; and that the seventh day
was for a long time held sacred by all nations, in com-
memoration of that event; but that the peculiar rigid-
ness of its observance Avas enjoined by Moses to the
Israelites alone. As to there being two reasons given
for its being kept holy — one, that on that day God rested
from the work of creation — the other, that on that day
God had given them rest from the servitude of Egypt—
I see no contradiction in the accounts. If a man, ia
■WTiting the history of England, should inform hia
readers that the parliament had ordered the fifth day
of November to be kept holy, because on that day God
delivered the nation from a bloody intended massacre
by gunpowder; and if, in another part of his history, he
should assign the deliverance of our church and nation

309] REPLY TO PAINE. 27

from popery and arbitrary pov/er, by the arrival of King
William, as a reason for its being kept holy ; would
any one contend that he was not justified in both thesp
ways o^ expression, or that we ought from thence to
conclude that he Avas not the author of them both?

You think " that law in Deuteronomy inhuman and
brutal, which authorizes parents, the father and the
mother, to bring their own children to have them stoned
to death for what it is pleased to call stubbornness."
You are aware, I suppose, that paternal power amongst
the Romans^ the Gauls, the Persians, and other na-
tions, was of the most arbitrary kind; that it extended
to the taking away of the life of the child. I do not
know whether the Israelites in the time of Moses ex-
ercised this paternal power ; it was not a custom adopt-
ed by all nations ; but it was by many ; and in the in-
fancy of society, before individual families had coa-
lesced into communities, it was probably very general.
Now Moses, by this law, which you esteem brutal and
inhuman, hindered such an extravagant power from
being either introduced or exercised among the Israel-
ites. This law is so far from countenancing the arbi-
trary power of a father over the life of his child, that
it takes from him the power of accusing the child be-
fore a magistrate — the father and mother of the child
must agree in bringing the child to judgment; and it
is not by their united will that the child was to be con-
demned to death — the elders of the city were to judge
whether the accusation was true ; and the accusation
was to be not merely, as you insinuate, that the child
was stubborn, but that he was " stubborn and rebel-
lious, a glutton and a drunkard." Considered in this
light, you must allow the law to have been a humane

28 WATsoN^s [310

restriction of a power improper to be lodged with any
parent.

That you may abuse the priests, you abandon your
subject. "Priests," you say, "preach up Deuterono-
my, for Deuteronomy preaches up tithes." I do not
know that priests preach up Deuteronomy more than
they preach up other books of Scripture ; but I do know
that tithes are not preached up in Deuteronomy more
than in Leviticus, in Numbers, in Chronicles, in Ma-
lachi, in the law, the history, and the prophets of the
Jewish nation. You go on: "It is from this book,
chap. 25, ver. 4, they have taken the phrase, and ap-
plied it to tithing, ' Thou shalt not muzzle the ox
when he treadeth out the corn :' and that this might
not escape observation, they have noted it in the table
of the contents at the head of the chapter, though it is
only a single verse of less than two lines. O priests !
priests ! ye are willing to be compared to an ox, for the
sake of tithes !" I cannot call this reasoning, and I
will not pollute my page by giving it a proper appel-
lation. Had the table of contents, instead of simply
saying — the ox is not to be muzzled, said — tithes en-
joined, or priests to be maintained — there would have
been a little ground for your censure. Whoever noted
this phrase at the head of the chapter, had better rea-
son for doing it than you have attributed to them.
They did it, because Si. Paul had quoted it when he
was proving to the Corinthians that they who preach-
ed the Gospel had a right to liv^e by the Gospel ; it was
Paul, and not the priests, who first applied this phrase
to tithing. St. Paul, indeed, did not avail himself of
the right he contended for; he was not, therefore, in-
terested m v.^liat he said. The reason on which he

31 ll REPLY TO PAINE. 2S

grounds the right is not merely this quotaiion, which
YOU ridicule ; nor the appointment of the law of Mo-
Res, which you think fabulous; nor the injunction of
Jesus, which you despise: no, it is a reason founded
in the nature of things, and which no philosopher, no
unbeliever, no man of common sense can deny to be a
solid reason ; it amounts to this — that " the laborer is
■worthy of his hire." Nothing is so much a man's
own as his labor and ingenuity ; and it is entirely
consonant to the law of nature, that by the innocent
use of these he should provide for his subsistence.
Husbandmen, artists, soldiers, physicians, lawyers
fill let out their labor and talents for a stipulated re-
ward: why may not a priest do the same? Some ac-
counts of you have been published in England; but,
conceiving them to have proceeded from a design to
injure your character, I never read them. I know no-
thing of your parentage, your education, or condition
of life. You may have been elevated, by your birth,
above the necessity of acquiring the means of sustain
ing life by the labor of either hand or head; if this be
the case, you ought not to despise those who have
come into the w^orld ix> less favorable circumstances.
If your origin has been less fortunate, you must have
supported yourself either by manual labor or the ex-
ercise of your genius. Why should you think that
conduct disreputable in priests, which you probably
consider as laudable in yoi^rself 1 I will just mention,
that the payment of tithes is no new institution, Imt
that they were paid in the most ancient times, not to
priests only, but to kings. I could give an hundred
instances of this : two may be sufficient. Abraham
paid tithes to the king of Salem, four hundred years

so Watson's [312

before the law of Moses was given. The king of Sa-
lem was priest also of the most high God. Priests,
you see, existed in the world, and were held in high
estiniation — for kings were priests — long before the ira
postures, as you esteem them, of the Jewish and Chris
tian dispensations were heard of. But as this instanc
is taken from a book which you call " a book of con-
tradictions and lies" — the Bible — I will give you ano-
ther, from a book, to the authority of which, as it is
written by a profane author, you probably will not ob-
ject. Diogenes Laertiiis, in his life of Soloii, cites a
letter of Pisistratus to thai lawgiver, in which he
says — '• I Pisistratus, the Tyrant, am contented with
the stipends which v.^ere paid to those who reigned
before me ; the people of Athens set apart a tenth of
the fruits of their land, not for my private use, but to
be expended in the public sacrifices, and for the gene-
ral good."

LETTER III.

Having done with what you call the grammatical
evidence that Moses vras not the author of the books
attributed to him, you come to your historical and
chronological evidence, and you begin with Genesis.
Yiiur first argument is taken from the single word —
D;n — being found in Genesis, when it appears, from
ihc book of Judges, that the town Laish was not called
Da 1 till above three hundred aud thirty years after the
dea.h of Moses ; therefore the writer of Genesis, you
conclude, must have lived after the town of Laish had
the name of Dan given it. Lest this objection should
not be obvious enough to a commoa capacity, you illus-

3^3] REPLY TO PAINE. 31

t'-ite in the following" manner : '* Havre-de-Grace was
called Havre-Marat in 1793; should then any dateless
writing he found, in after-times, with the name of Ha-
vre-Marat, it would be certain evidence that such a
writing could not have been written till after the year
1793." This is a wrong conclusion. Suppose some
hot republican should at this day publish a new edi-
tion of any old history of France, and instead of Havre-
de-Grace should write Havre-Marat ; and that, two or
three thousand years hence, a man like yourself should,
on that account, reject the whole history as spurious,
would he be jusiitied in so doing? Would it not be
reasonable to tell him that the name of Havre-Marat
had been inserted, not by the original author of the
history, but by a subsequent editor of it ; and to refer
lim. for a proof of the genuineness of the book, to the
testimony of the whole French nation? This suppo-
sition so obviously applies to your difficulty, that I can-
not but recommend it to your impartial attention. But
if this solution does not please you, I desire it may be
proved that the Dan mentioned in Genesis was the
same town as the Dan mentioned in Judges ; I desire,
further, to have it proved that the Dan mentioned in
Genesis w.'is the name of a town and not of a river.
It is merelr said — Abraham pursued them, the enemies
of Lot, to Dan. Now, a river was full as likely as a
town to stop a pursuit. Lot, we know, was settled in
the plain of Jordan ; and Jordan, we know, was com-
posed of the united streams of two rivers called Jor
and Dan.

Your next difficulty respects its being said in Ge-
nesis— " These are the kings that reigned in Edom be-
fore there reigned any king over the children of Israel;

27 Infidelity.

32 WAT30N'3 [Zli

this passage could only have been written, you say,
(and I think you say rightly,) after the first king began
to reign over Israel; so far from being written by
Moses, it could not have been written till the time of
Saul at the least." I admit this inference, but I deny
its application. A small addition to a book does not
destroy either the genuineness or the authenticity of
the whole book. I am not ignorant of the manner in
which commentators have answered this objection of
Spinoza, without making the concession which I have
made ; but I have no scruple in admitting that the pas-
sage in question, consisting of nine verses, containing
the genealogy of some kings of Edom, might have been
inserted in the book of Genesis after the book of Chro-
nicles (vv'hich was called in Greek by a name import-
ing that it contained things left out in other books) was
written. The learned have shown that interpolations
have happened to other books ; but these insertions by
other hands have never been considered as invalidat-
ing the authority of the books.

" Take away from Genesis," you say, " the belief
that Moses was the author, on Avhich only the strange
belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there
remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book
of stories, fables, traditionary or invented absurdities,
or of downright lies." What ! is it a story, then, that
the world had a beginning, and that the author of it
was God ? If you deem this a story, I am not disputing
with a deistical philosopher, but with an atheistic mad-
man. Is it a story, that our first parents fell from a
paradisiacal state — that this earth was destroyed by a
deluge — that Noah and his family were preserved in
the arkj and that the world has been re-peopled by his

315] REPLY TO PAINE. 33

descendants ? Look into a book so common that almost
every body has it, and so excellent that no person ought
to be without it — Grotius on the truth of the Christian
religion — and you will there meet with abundant tes-
timony to the truth of all the principal facts recorded
in Genesis. 'The testimony is not that of Jews, Chris-
tians and priests ; it is the testimony of the philoso-
phers, historians, and poets of antiquity. The oldest
book in the world is Genesis ; and it is remarkable
that those books which come nearest to it in age,
are those which make either the most distinct men
tion, or the most evident allusion to the facts related
in Genesis concerning the formation of the world from
a chaotic mass, the primeval innocence and subsequent
fall of man, the longevity of mankind in the first ages
of the world, the depravity of the antediluvians, and
the destructi-on of the world. Read the tenth chapter
of Genesis. It may appear to you to contain nothing
but an uninteresting narration of the descendants of
Shem, Ham, and Japheth ; a mere fable, an invented
absurdity, a downright lie. No, sir, it is one of the
most valuable and the most venerable records of anti-
quity. It explains what all profane historians were ig-
norant of — the origin of nations. Had it told us, as
other books do, that one nation had sprung out of the
earth they inhabited ; another from a cricket or a grass-
hopper; another from an oak; another from a mush-
room ; another from a dragon's tooth ; then indeed it
would have merited the appellation you, with so much
temerity, bestow upon it. Instead of these absurdities,
it gives such an account of peopling the earth after the
deluge, as no other book in the world ever did give ;
and the truth of which, all other books in the world,

34 Watson's 1316

which contain any thing on the subject, confirm. The
last verse of the chapter says, " These are the families
of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their
nations; and by these were the nations divided in the
earth, after the flood." It would require great learning
to trace out precisely, either the actual situation of all
the countries in which these founders of empires set-
tled, or to ascertain the extent of their dominions. This,
however, has been done by various authors, to the sa-
tisfaction of all competent judges ; so much at least to
my satisfaction, that, had I no other proof of the au-
thenticity of Genesis, I should consider this as suffi-
cient. But, without the aid of learning, any man who
can barely read his Bible, and has but heard of such
people as the Assyrians, the Elamites, the Lydiaiis,
the jMedes, the lonians, the Thracians, will readily
acknowledge that they had Asur, and Elam, and Litd,
and Madia, and Javan, and Tiras, grandsons of A'boA,
for their respective founders ; and knowing this, he will
not, I hope, part with his Bible, as a system of fables.
I am no enemy to philosophy ; but when philosophy
would rob me of my Bible, I must say of it, as Cicero
said of the twelve tables — This little book alone ex-
ceeds the libraries of all the philosophers, in the weight
of its authority and in the extent of its utility.

From the abuse of the Bible you proceed to that of
Moses, and again bring forv%'ard the subject of his wars
in the land of Canaan. There are many men who
look upon all war (would to God that all men saw it
in the same light) Avith extreme abhorrence, as afflict-
ing mankind with calamities not necessary, shocking
to humanity, and repugnant to reason. But is it re-
pugnant to reason that God should, by an express act

337 REPLY TO PAINE. 35

of his providence, destroy a wicked nation ? I am fond
of considering the goodness of God as the leading prin-
ciple of his conduct towards mankind, of considering?
his justice as subservient to his mercy. He punishes
individuals and nations with the I'od of his wrath; but
I am persuaded that all his punishments or ginaie in
his abhorrence of sin, are calculated to lessen its in-
fluence, and are proofs of his goodness; inasmuch as
it may not be possible for Omnipotence itself to com-
municate supreme happiness to the humsln race whilst
they continue servants of sin. The destruction of the
Canaanites exhibits to all nations, in all ages, a signal
proof of God's displeasure against sin : it has been to
others, and it is to ourselves, a benevolent warning.
Moses would have been the wretch you represent him,
had he acted by his own authority alone ; but you may
as reasonably attribute cruelty and murder to the judge
of the land in condemning criminals to death, as butch-
ery and massacre to Moses in executing the command
of God.

The Midianites, through the counsel of Balaam,
and by the vicious instrumentality of their women,
nad seduced a part of the Israelites to idolatry — to the
impure worship of their infamous god Baalpeor : for
this offence, twenty-four thousand Israelites had pe-
rished in a plague from heaven, and Moses received a
command from God " to smite the Midianites who
had beguiled the people." An army was equipped
and sent against Midian. When the army returned
victorious, Moses and the princes of the congregation
went to meet it ; and " Moses was wroth with the
officers." He observed the women captives, and he
asked with astonishment, "Have ye saved all the
27+

36 Watson's [3 IS

women alire ? Behold, these caused the children of
Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit
trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and
there Avas a plague among the congregation." He
then gave an order that the boys and the women
should be put to death, but that the young maidens
should b? kept alive for themselves. I see nothing in
this proceeding, but good policy combined with mer-
cy. The young men might have become dangerous
avengers of what they would esteem their country's
wrongs ; the mothers might have again allured the
Israelites to love licentious pleasures and the practice
of idolat y, and brought another plague upon the con-
gregation; but the young maidens, not being polluted
by the flagitious habits of their mothers, nor likely to cre-
ate disturbance by rebellion, were kept alive. You give
a different turn to the matter; you say — " that thirty-
two thousand women-children were consigned to de-
bauchery by the order of Moses." Prove this, and 1 will
allow that Moses was the horrid monster you m.ake
him— prove this, and I will allow that the Bible is
what you call it — '• a book of lies, wickedness, and
blasphemy," — prove this, or excuse my warmth if I
say to you, as Paul said to Elymas the sorcerer, who
sought to turn away Sergius Paulus from the faith,
* O full of all subtilty and of all mischief, thou
child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness,
wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the
Lord?" I did not, when I began these letters, think
that I should have been moved to this severity of re-
buke by any things you could have written ; but when
so gross a misrepresentation is made of God's pro-
ceedings, coolness would be a crime. The women

S19] REPLY TO PAINE. 37

cliildren were not reserved for the purposes of de-
bauchery, but of slavery — a custom abhorrent from
our manners, but every where practiced in former
times, and still practiced in countries where the benig-
nity of the Christian religion has not softened the
ferocity of human nature. You here admit a part of
the account given in the Bible respecting the expedi-
tion against Midian to be a true account ; it is not
unreasonable to desire that you will admit the whole,
or show sufficient reason why you admit one part and
reject the ather. I will mention the part to which
you have paid no attention. The Israelitish army
consisted but of twelve thousand men, a mere hand-
ful when opposed to the people of Midian ; yet, when
the officers made a muster of their troops after their
return from the war, they found that they had not lost
a single man ! This circumstance struck them as so
decisive an evidence of God's interposition, that out
of the spoils they had taken they offered "an obla-
tion to the Lord, an atonement for their souls." Do
but believe what the captains of thousands and the
captains of hundreds believed at the time \vhen these
things happened, and w^e shall never more hear of
your objections to the Bible from its account of the
wars of Moses.

You produce two or three other objections respuct-
ing the genuineness of the first five books of the
Bible. I cannot slop to notice them: every commen-
tator answers them in a manner suited to the appre-
hension of even a mere English reader. You calculate
to the thousandth part of an inch, the length of the
iron bed of Og the king of Eashan ; but you do not
prove that the bed was too big for the body, or that a

38 Watson's [320

Patagonian wonld have been lost in it. You make no
allowance for the size of a royal bed, nor ever sus-
pect that king Og might have been possessed with
the same kind of vanity which occupied the mind of
king Alexander when he ordered his soldiers to en-
large the size of their beds, that they might give the
Indians, in succeeding ages, a great idea of The pro-
digious stature of a Macedonian. In many parts of
your work you speak much in commendation of
science. I join with you in every commendation you
can give it ; but you speak of it in such a manner as'
to give room to believe that you are a great proficient
in it ; if this be the case, I would recommend a pro--
blem to your attention, the solution of which you will
readily allow to be far above the powers of a man
conversant only, as you represent priests and bishops
to be, in hie, hcec, hoc. The problem is this — to de-
termine the height to Avhich a human body, preserving
its similarity of figure, may be augmented before it
will perish by its own weight. When you have solved
this problem, we shall know whether the bed of the king
of Bashan was too big for any giant ; whether the ex-
istence of a man twelve or fifteen feet high is in the
nature of things impossible. My philosophy teaches
me to doubt of many things ; but it does not teach me
to reject every testimony which is opposite to my ex-
perience : had I been in Shetland, I could, on proper
testimony, have believed in the existence of ihe Lin-
colnshire ox, or of the largest dray-horse in London j
though the oxen and horses in Shetland had not been
bigger than mastics.

32!] REPLY TO PAINE. 9^

LETTER IV.

Having finished your objections to the genuineness
of the books of Moses, you proceed to your remarks
on the book o-f Joshua ; and from its internal evidence
you endeavor to prove that this book was not written
by Joshua. What then? what is your conclusion?
" That it is anonymous and without authority."
Stop a little ; your conclusion is not connected with
your premises ; your friend Euclid would have been
ashamed of it. " Anonymous, and therefore without
authority !" I have noticed this solecism before ;
but as you frequently bring it forward — and indeed
your book stands much in need of it — I Avill sub-
mit to your consideration another observation on the
subject. The book called Fleta is anonymous ; but
it is not on that account without authority. Domes-
day book is anonymous, and was written above seven
hundred years ago ; yet our courts of law do not hold it
to be without authority as to the facts related in it. Yes,
you will say, but this book has been preserved with pe-
culiar care amongst the records of the nation. And
who told you that the Jews had no records, or that they
did not preserve them with singular care? Josephus
says the contrary ; and in the Bible itself an appeal is
made to many books which have perished ; such as
the book of Jasher, the book of Nathan, of Abijah, of
Iddo, of Jehu, of natural history by Solomon, of the
acts of Manasseh, and others which might be men-
tioned. If any one, having access to the journals of
the lords and commons, to the books of the treasury,
war-oflice, privy council, and other public documents,

40 Watson's [322

should at this day write a history of the reigns of
George the First and Second, and should publish it
without his name, would any man, three or four
hundreds or thousands of years hence, question the
authority of that book, when he knew that the whole
British nation had received it as an authentic book
from the time of its first publication to the age in
which he lived? This supposition is in point. The
books of the Old Testament were composed from the
records of the Jewish nation, and they have been re-
ceived as true by that nation, from ihe time in which
they were written to the present day. Dodsiey's An-
nual Register is an anonymous book, we only know
the name of its editor ; the New Annual Register is
an anonymous book; the Reviews are anonymous
books ; but do we, or will our posterity esteem those
books of no authority ? On the contrary, they are
admitted at present, and will be received in after-ages
as authoritative records of the civil, and military, and
literary history of England and of Europe. So little
foundation is there for our being startled by your as-
sertion, " It is anonymous, and without authority."

If I am right in this reasoning, (and I protest to you
that I do not see any error in it.) all the arguments
you adduce in proof that the book of Joshua was not
written by Joshua, nor that of Samuel by Samuel, are
nothing to the purpose for which you have brought
them forward : these books may be books of authority,
though all you advance against the genuineness of
them should be granted. No article of faith is injur-
ed by allowing that there is no such positive proof,
when or by whom these and some other books of holy
Scripture were written, as to exclude all possibility

323] REPLY TO PAINE. 41

of doubt and cavil. There is no necessity, indeed,
to allow this. The chronological and historical diffi-
culties, which others before you have produced, have
been answered, and, as to the greatest part of the.n, so
v/ell answered, that I will not waste the reader's time
by entering into a particular examination of them.

You make yourself merry with what you call the
tale of the sun standing still upon mount Gibeon, and
the moon in the valley of Ajalon ; and you say that
" the story detects itself, because there is not a nation
in the world that knows any thing about it." How
can you expect that there should, when there is not a
nation in the world whose annals reach this era by-
many hundred years ? It happens, however, that you
are probably mistaken as to the fact ; a confused tra-
dition concerning this miracle, and a similar one in
the time of Ahaz, when the sun went back ten de-
grees, has been preserved amongst one of the most
ancient nations, as we are informed by one of the
most ancient historians. Herodotus, in his Euterpe,
speaking of the Egyptian priests, says — " They told
me that the sun had four times deviated from his
course, having twice risen where he uniformly goes
down, and twice gone down where he uniformly rises.
This however had produced no alteration in the cli-
mate of Egypt ; the fruits of the earth and the phe-
nomena of the Nile had always been the same." —
(Beloe's Translation.) The last part of this observa-
tion confirms the conjecture, that this account of the
Egyptian priests had a reference to the two miracles
respecting the sun mentioned in Scripture ; for they
were not of that kind which could introduce any
change in climates or seasons. You would have been

42 watson'3 [321

contented to admit the account of this miracle as a
fine piece of poetical imagery : you may have seen
some Jewish doctors, and some Christian commen-
tators, who consider it as such, hut improperly, in my
opmion. I think it idle at least, if not impious, to
undertake to explain how the miracle was performtd ',
but one who is not able to explain the mode of doing
a thing, argues ill if he hence infers that the thing
was not done. We are perfectly ignorant how the
sun was formed, how the planets were projected at
the creation, how they are still retained in their orbits
by the power of gravity ; but we admit, notwithstand-
ing, that the sun was formed, that the planets were
then projected, and that they are still retained in their
orbits. The machine of the universe is in the hand
of God ; he can stop the motion of any part, or of the
whole of it, with less trouble and less danger of in-
juring it than you can stop your Avatch. In testi-
mony of the reality of the miracle, the author of the
book says — " Is not this written in the book of Ja-
sher ?" No author in his senses would have appealed,
in proof of his veracity, to a book which did not exist,
or in attestation of a fact which, though it did exist,
was not recorded in it ; we may safely therefore con-
clude, that, at the time the book of Joshua was written,
there was such a book as the book of Jasher, and that
the miracle of the sun's standing still was recorded in
that book. But this observation, you will say, does not
prove the fact of the sun's having stood still. I have
not produced it as a proof of that fact ; but it proves
that the author of the book of Joshua believed tne
fact, that the people of Israel admitted the authority
of the book of Jasher. An appeal to a fabulous book

325 j REPLY TO PAINE. 43

would have been as senseless an insult upon their
understanding, as it would have been upon ours had
Rapin appealed to the Arabian Nights' Entertainments
as a proof of the battle of Hastings.

I cannot attribute much weight to your argument
against the genuineness of the book of Joshua, from
its being said that — " Joshua burned Ai, and made it
an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.''''
Joshua lived twenty-four years after the burning of
Ai ; and if he wrote his history in the latter part of
his life, what absurdity is there in saying, Ai is siill
in ruins, or Ai is in ruins to this very day ? A yoking
man, who had seen the heads of the rebels in forty-
five, when they Avere first stuck upon the poles at
Temple-Bar, might, twenty years afterwards, in at-
testation of his veracity in speaking of the fact, have
justly said — And they are there to this very day.
'vVaoever wrote the Gospel of St. Matthew, it was
written not many centuries, probably (1 had 'liraost
said certainly) not a quarter of a century after the
death of Jesus ; yet the author, speaking of the pot-
ter's field which had been purchased by the chief
priests with the money they had given to Judas to
betray his Master, says that it was therefore called
the field of blood unto this day ; and in another place,
he saySj that the story of the body of Jesus being sto-
len out of the sepulchre was commonly reported
among the Jews until this day. Moses, in his old
age, had made use of a similar expression, when he
put the Israelites in mind of what the Lord had done
to the Egyptians in the Red Sea. " The Lord hath
destroyed them unto this day." Deut. 11:4.

In the last chapter of the book of Joshua it is related

29 Infidelity.

44 WATSON '3 I32G

that Joshua assembled all the tribes of Israel to Shc-
chem, and there, in the presence of the elders and prin-
cipal men of Israel, he recapitulated, in a short speech,
all that God had done for their nation from the calling
of Abraham to that time, when they were settled in
the land which God had promised to their forefathers.
In finishing his speech, he said to them, " Choose you
this day whom you will serve ; whether the gods which
your fathers served, that were on the other side of the
flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell : but as for me and ray house, we will serve the
Lord." And the people answered and said, " God for-
bid that Y/e should forsake the Lord to serve other
gods." Joshua urged farther, that God would not suffer
them to Avorship other gods in fellowship with him.
They answered that " they would serve the Lord,"
Joshua then said to them, " Ye are witnesses against
yourselves that ye have chosen you the Lord to serve
him." And they said, " We are witnesses." Here was
a solemn covenant between Joshua, on the part of the
Lord, and all the men of Israel, on their own part.
The text then says, " So Joshua made a covenant with
the people that day, and set them a statute and an or-
dinance in Shechem ; and Joshua wrote these icords
in the hook of the Law of God.''"' Here is a proof of
two things — first, that there was then, a few years af-
ter the death of Moses, existing a book called the Book
of the Law of God ; the same, without doubt, which
Moses had written, and committed to the custody of
the Levites, that it might be kept in the ark of the co-
venant of the Lord, that it might be a witness against
them — secondly, that Joshua wrote a part at least cf
his own transactions in that very book, as an addition

327] REPLV TO PAINE. 45

to ft. It is not a proof that he wrote all his own trans-
actions in any book; but I submit entirely to the judg-
ment of every candid man, v/hether this proof of his
having recorded a very material transaction does not
make it probable that he recorded other material trans-
actions ; that he wrote the chief part of the book of
Joshua; and that such things as happened after his
death have been inserted in it by others, in order to
render the history more complete.

The book of Joshua, chap. 6, ver. 26, is quoted in
the first book of Kings, chap. 16 : 34. " In his ( Ahab's)
days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho ; he laid the
foundation thereof in Abiram his first born, and setup
the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according
to the word of the Lord which he spake by Joshua the
son of Nun." Here is a proof that the book of Joshua
is older than the first book of Kings : but that is not
all which may reasonably be inferred, I do not say
proved, from this quotation. It may be inferred from
the phrase, " according to the word of the Lord which
he spake by Joshua the son of Nun," that Joshua wrote
down the word which the Lord had spoken. In Baruch
(which, though an apoc-ryphal book, is authority for
this purpose) there is a similar phrase — as thou spakest
by thy servant Moses in the day when thou didst com-
mand him to write thy law.

I think it unnecessary to make any observations on
what you say relative to the book of Judges ; but I can-
not pass unnoticed your censure of the book of Ruth,
which you call "an idle bungling story, foolishly told,
nobody knows by whom, about a strolling country girl
creeping slily to bed to her cousin Boaz : pretty stuff
indeed," you exclaim, " to be called the word of God !"

46 watson'3 [328

It seems to me that you do not perfectly comprehend
Vv'hat is meant by the expression — the word of God —
or the divine authority of the Scriptures : I will ex-
plain it to you in the words of Dr. Law, late bishop
of Carlisle, and in those of St. Austin. My first quota-
tion is from bishop Law's Theory of Religion, a book
not undeserving your notice. " The true sense then
of the divine authority of the books of the Old Testa-
ment, and which perhaps is enough to denominate
them in general divinely inspired^ seems to be this :
that as in those times God has all along, besides the
inspection or superintendency of his general provi-
dence, interfered upon particular occasions, by giving
express commissions to some persons (thence called
'prophets) to declare his will in various manners and
degrees of evidence, as best suited the occasion, time,
and nature of the subject, and in all other cases left
them wholly to themselves : in like manner he has in-
terposed his more immediate assistance (and notified
it to them, as they did to the world) in the recording
of these revelations ; so far as that was necessary,
amidst the common (but from hence termed sacred)
history of those times ; and mixed with various othei
occurrences, in which the historian's own natural qua-
lifications w^ere sufficient to enable him to relate things
with all the accuracy they required." The passage
from St, Austin is this : " I am of opinion that those
men to whom the Holy Ghost revealed what ought to
be received as authoritative in religion, might write
some things as men, with historical diligence, and other
things as prophets, by divine inspiration ; and that these
things are so distinct, that the former may be attribut-
ed to themselves as contributing to the increase of

329] REPLY TO PilNE. 47

knov/ledge, and the latter to God speaking, by them,
things appertaining to the authority of religion." Whe-
ther this opinion be right or wrong, I do not here in-
quire ; it is the opinion of many learned men and good
Christians; and if you will adopt it as your opinion,
you will see cause, perhaps, to become a Christian
yourself; and you will see cause to consider chrono-
logical, geographical, or genealogical errors — apparent
mistakes or real contradictions as to historical facts —
needless repetitions and trifling interpolations — indeed
you will see cause to consider all the principal objec-
tions of your book to be absolutely without foundation.
Only receive the Bible as composed by upright and
well informed, though, in some points, fallible men,
(for 1 exclude all fallibility when they profess to de-
liver the word of God,) ajcid you must receive it as a
book revealing to you, in many parts, the express will
of God ; and in other parts, relating to you the ordina-
ry history of the times. Give but the authors of the
Bible that credit which you give to other historians ;
believe them to deliver the word of God, when they
tell you that they do so; believe, when they relate
other things as of themselves and not of the Lord, that
they wrote to the best of their knowledge and capaci-
ty, and you will be in your belief something very dif-
ferent from a deist ; you may not be allowed to aspire
to the character of an orthodox believer, but you will
not be an unbeliever in the divine authority of the
r3ible, though you should admit human mistakes and
human opinions to exist in some parts of it. Tliis I
take to be the first step towards the removal of the
doubts of many sceptical men; and when they are ad-
vanced thus far, the grace of God assisting, a teacliaKj
58*

48 watson'3 [330

disposition and a pious intention may carry them on
to perfection.

As to Ruth, you do an injury to her character. She
was not a strolling country girl. She had been mar-
ried ten years; and being left a widow without chil-
dren, she accompanied her mother-in-law, returning
into her native country, out of which, with her hus-
band and her two sons, she had been driven by a fa-
mine. The disturbances in France have driven many
men with their families to America; if, ten years
hence, a w^oman, having lost her husband and her
children, should return to France with a daughter-in-
law, would you be justified in calling the daughter-in-
law a strolling country girl ? — " But she crept slily to
bed to her cousin Bofiz." I do not find it so in the
history — as a person imploring protection, she laid
herself down at the foot of an aged kinsman's bed,
and she rose up with as much innocence as she had
laid herself down. She was afterward married to
Boaz, and reputed by all her neighbors a virtuous wo-
man ; and they Avere more likely to know her charac-
ter than you are. Whoever reads the book of Ruth,
bearing in mind the simplicity of ancient manners,
will find it an interesting story of a poor young wo-
man, following in a strange land the advice, and af-
fectionately attaching herself to the fortunes of the
mother of her deceased husband.

The two books of Samuel come next under your
review. You proceed to show that these books were
not written by Samuel, that they are anonymous, and
thence, you conclude, without authority. I need not
here repeat what I have said upon the fallacy of your
conclusion; and as to your proving that the books

331] REPLY TO PAINE. 49

were not written by Samuel, you might have spared
yourself some trouble if you had recollected that it is
generally admitted that Samuel did not write any
part of the second book which bears his name, and
only a part of the first. It would, indeed, have been
an inquiry not undeserving your notice, in many parts
of your work, to have examined v/hat was the opinion
of learned men respecting the authors of the several
books of the Bible ; you would have found that you
were in many places fighting a phantom of your own
raising, and proving what was generally admitted.
Very little certainty, I think, can at this time be ob-
tained on this subject ; but that you may have some
knowledge of what has been conjectured by men of
judgmen't, I will quote to you a passage from Dr.
Hartley's observations on Man. The author himself
does not vouch for the truth of his observations, for
he begins it with a supposition—"! suppose, then,
that the Pentateuch consists of the writings of Moses,
put together by Samuel, with a very few additions ;
that the books of Joshua and Judges Avere, in like
manner, collected by him ; and the book of Ruth, with
the first part of the book of Samuel, written by him ;
that the latter part of the first book of Samuel, and
the second book, were written by the prophets who
succeeded Samuel, suppose Nathan and Gad _; that
the books of Kings and Chronicles are extracts from
the records of the succeeding prophets concerning
their own times, and from the public genealogical ta-
bles made by Ezra; that the books of Ezra and Ne-
hemiah are collections of like records, some written
by Ezra and Nehemiah, and some by their predeces-
sors j that the book of Esther was written by some

50 Watson's [33<J

eminent Jew, in or near the times of the transactions
there recorded, perhaps Mordecai ; the book of Job
by a Jew, of an uncertain time ; the Psalms by Da-
niel, and other pious persons ; the books of Proverbs
and Canticles by Solomon; the book of Ecclesiastes
by Solomon, or perhaps by a Jew of later times, speak-
ing in his person, but not with an intention to make
him pass for the author ; the prophecies by the pro-
phets whose names they bear; and the books of the
New Testament by the persons to whom they are usu-
ally ascribed." 1 have produced this passage to you, not
merely to show you that, in a great part of your work,
you are attacking what no person is interested in de-
fending, but to convince you that a wise and good
man, and a firm believer in revealed religion — for such
was Dr. Hartley, and no priest — did not reject the
anonymous books of the Old Testament as books
without authority. I shall not trouble either you or
myself with any more observations on that head ; you
may ascribe the two books of Kings and fhe two books
of Chronicles to what authors you please ; I am satis-
fied with knowing that the annals of the Jewish na-
tion were written in the time of Samuel, and proba-
bly, in all succeeding times, by men of ability, who
lived in or near the times of which they write. Of
the truth of this observation we have abundant proof,
not only from the testimony of Josephus and of the
writers of the Talmuds, but from the Old Testament
itself. I will content myself Avith citing a few places,
" Now the acts of David the king, first and last, be-
hold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer,
and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the
book of Gad the seer." 1 Chron. 29 : 29. "Now the

S33] REPLY TO PAINE. 51

rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are tliey not
written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the
prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions
of Iddo the seer?" 2 Chron. 9 : 29. "Now the acts
of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not wriiten in
the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the
seer, concerning genealogies ?" 2 Chronicles, 12 : 15.
"Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and
last, behold they are written in the book of Jehu, the
son of Hanini." 2 Chron. 20 : 34. Is it possible for
writers to give a stronger evidence of their veracity,
than by referring their readers to the books from
which they had extracted the materials of their his-
tory 1

"The two books of Kings," you say, "are little
more than a history of assassinations, treachery and
war." That the kings of Israel and Judah were
many of them very wicked persons, is evident from
the history which is given of them in the Bible ; but
it ought to be remembered that their wickedness is
not to be attributed to their religion; nor were the
people of Israel chosen to be the people of God on
account of their wickedness ; nor was their being
chosen, a cause of it. One may wonder indeed, that
having experienced so many singular marks of God's
goodness towards their nation, they did not at once
become, and continue to be, (what, however, they
have long been,) strenuous advocates for the worship
of one only God, the maker of heaven and earth.
This was the purpose for which they were chosen,
and this purpose has been accomplished. For above
three-and-twenty hundred years, the Jews have uni-
formly witnessed, to all the nations of the earth, the

52 Watson's f334

unity of God and his abomination of idolatry. But as
you look upon " the appellation of the Jews beings
God's chosen people, as a lie, which the priests and
leaders of the Jews had invented to cover the base-
ness of their own characters, and which Christian
priests, sometimes as corrrupt, and often as cruel,
have professed to believe," I w^iU plainly state to you
the reasons which induce me to believe that it is no
lie, and I hope they will be such reasons as you will
not attribute either to cruelty or corruption.

To any one contemplating the universality of things
and the fabric of nature, this globe of earth, with the
men dwelling on its surface, will not appear (exclu-
sive of the divinity of their souls) of more importance
than a hillock of ants ; all of which, some with corn,
some with eggs, some without any thing, run hither
and thither, bustling about a little heap of dust. This
is a thought of the immortal Bacon ; and it is admira-
bly fitted to humble the pride of philosophy, attempt-
ing to prescribe forms to the proceedings, and bounds
to the attributes of God. We may as easily circum-
scribe infinity as penetrate the secret purposes of the
Almi^^ity. There are but two ways by which I can
acquire any knowledge of the Supreme Being — by rea-
son, and by revelation; to you, who reject revelation,
there is but one. Now, my reason informs me that
God has made a great difference between the kinds of
animals, with respect to their capacity of enjoying
happiness. Every kind is perfect in its order ; but if
we compare different kinds together, one will appear
to be greatly superior to another. An animal which
has but one sense, has but one source of happiness ;
but if It be supplied with what is suited to that sense,

S35] REPLY TO PAINE. 53

it enjoys all the happiness of which it i-s capable, and
is in its natine perfect. Other sorts of animals, which
have two or three senses, and which have also abun-
dant means of gratifying them, enjoy twice or thrice
as much happiness as those do vvrhich have but one.
In the same sort of animals there is a great difference
amongst individuals, one having the senses more per-
fect, and the body less subject to disease, than another.
Hence, if I were to form a judgment of the divine
goodness by this use of my reason, I could not but say
that it was partial and unequal. " What shall we say
then? Is God unjust? God forbid!" His goodness
may be unequal without being imperfect ; it must be
estimated from the whole, and not from a part. Every
order of beings is so sufficient for its own happiness,
and so conducive at the same time to the happiness of
every other, that, in one view, it seems to be made for
itself alone, and in another, not for itself, but for every
other. Could we comprehend the whole of the im-
mense fabric which God hath formed, I am persuaded
that we should see nothing but perfection, harmony
and beauty in every part of it ; but whilst we dispute
about parts, we neglect the whole, and discern nothing
but supposed anomalies and defects. The maker of a
watch, or the builder of a ship, is not to be blamed be-
cause a spectator cannot discover either the beauty or
the use of the disjointed parts. And shall we dare to
accuse God of injustice, for not having distributed the
gifts of na ure in the same degree to all kinds of ani-
mals, when it is probable that this very inequality of
distribution may be the means of producing the great-
est sum total of happiness to the whole system ? In
exactly tae same manner may we reason concerning

54 Watson's [336

the acts of God's especial providence. If we consider
any one act, such as that of appointing the Jews to be
liis peculiar people, as unconnected with every other,
it may appear to be a partial display of his goodness ;
it may excite doubts concerning the wisdom or the be-
nignity of his divine nature. But if we connect the
history of the Jews with that of other nations, from
the most remote antiquity to the present time, we shall
discover that they were not chosen so much ^or their
own benefit, or on account of their own merit, as for
the general benefit of mankind. To the Egyptians,
Chaldeans, Grecians, Romans, to all the people of the
earth, they were formerly, and they are still to all civi-
lized nations, a beacon set upon a hill, to warn them
from idolatry, to light them to the sanctuary of a God,
holy, just, and good. Why should we suspect such a
dispensation of being a lie ? when, even from the little
which we can understand of it, w^e see that it is founded
in wisdom, carried on for the general good, and ana-
logous to all that reason teaches us concerning the
nature of God.

Several things you observe are mentioned in the
book of the Kings, such as the drying up of Jeroboam's
hand, the ascent of Elijah into heaven, the destruction
of the children who mocked Elisha, and the resurrec-
tion of a dead man : these circumstances being men-
tioned in the book of Kings, and not in that of Chro-
nicles, is a proof to you that they are lies. I esteem it
a very erroneous mode of reasoning, which, from the
silence of one author concerDing a particular circum-
stance, infers the want of veracity in another who men-
tions it, and this observation is still more cogent when
applied to a book which is only a supplement to, or

337j REPLY TO PAINE. 55

abridgment of other books ; and under this description
the book of Chronicles has been considered by all
writers. But though you will not believe the miracle
of the drying up of Jeroboam's hand, what can you say
to the prophecy which was then delivered concerning
the future destruction of the idolatrous altar of Jero-
boam? The prophecy is thus written, 1 Kings, 13 • 2,
" Behold a child shall be born unto the house of David,
Josiah by name, and upon thee (the altar) shall he
offer the priests of the high places," Here is a clear
prophecy ; the name, family, and office of a particular
person are described in the year 975 (according to the
Bible chronology) before Christ. About 350 years after
the delivery of the prophecy you will find, by consult-
ing the second book of Kings, (chap. 23 : 15, 16,) this
prophecy fulfilled in all its parts.

You make a calculation that Genesis was not writ-
ten till SOO years after Moses, and that it is of the same
age, and you may probably think of the same authori-
ty, as ^sop's fables. You give, what you call the evi-
dence of this, the air of a demonstration — " It has but
two stages; first, the account of the kings of Edom,
mentioned in Genesis, is taken from Chronicles, and
therefore the book of Genesis v.'as written after the
book of Chronicles : — secondly, the book of Chronicles
was not begun to be written till after Zedekiah, in
whose time Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem, 588
years before Christ, and more than 860 after Moses."
Having answered this objection before, I might be ex-
cused taking any more notice of it; but as you build
much, in this place, upon the strength of your argu-
ment, I will show its weakness when it is properly
stated. A few verses in the book of Genesis could not

29 Infidelity.

56 Watson's [338

be written by Moses ; therefore no part of Genesis
could be WTitten by Moses : a child would deny your
therefore. Again, a few verses in the book of Genesis
could not be -written by Moses, because they speak of
kings of Israel, there having been no kings of Israel
in the time of Moses ; and therefore they could not be
written by Samuel, or by Solomon, or any other per-
son who lived after there were kings in Israel, except
by the author of the book of Chronicles ; this is also
an illegitimate inference from your position. Again, a
few verses in the book of Genesis are, word for word,
the same as a few verses in the book of Chronicles ;
therefore the author of the book of Genesis must have
taken them from Chronicles ; another lame conclusion.
Why might not the author of the book of Chronicles
have taken them from Genesis, as he has taken many
other genealogies, supposing them to have been in-
serted in Genesis by Samuel? But where, you may
ask, could Samuel, or any other person, have found
the account of the kings of Edom? Probably in the
public records of the nation, which were certainly as
open for inspection to Samuel, and the other prophets,
as they were to the author of Chronicles. I hold it
needless to employ more time on the subject.

LETTER V.

At length you come to t-wo books, Ezra and Nehe-
miah, which you allow to be genuine books, giving an
account of the return of the Jews from the Babylonian
captivity, about 536 years before Christ ; but then you
say, " those accounts are nothing to us, nor to any
other persons, unless it be to the Jews, as a part of

339] REPLY TO PAINE. 57

the history of their nation : and there is just as much
of the word of God in those books as there is in any
of the histories of France, or in Rapin's History of
England." Here let us slop a moment, and try if
from your own concessions it be not possible to con-
fute your argument. Ezra and Nehemiah, you grant,
are genuine books — " but they are nothing to us."
The very first verse of Ezra says — the prophecy of
Jeremiah was fulfilled : is it nothing to us to know
that Jeremiah was a true prophet ? Do but grant that
the supreme Being communicated to any of the sons
of men a knowledge of future events, so that their
predictions were plainlv verified, and you will find
little difficulty in admitting the truth of revealed re-
ligion. Is it nothing to us to know that, five hundred
and thirty-six years before Christ, the books of Chro-
nicles, Kings, Judges, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Num-
bers, Leviticus, Exodus, Genesis, every book the
authority of which you have attacked, are all referred
to by Ezra and Nehemiah as authentic books, con-
aining the history of the Israelitish nation from Abra-
ham to that very time? Is it nothing to us to know
that the history of the Jews is true ? It is every
thing to us ; for if that history be not true, Christian-
ity must be false. The Jews are the root, we are the
branches " graffed in amongst them ;" to whom per-
tain " the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants,
and the giving of the law, and the service of God,
and the promises ; whose are the fathers, and, whom,
as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all,
God blessed for ever. Amen."

The history of the Old Testament has, without
doubt some difficulties in it j but a minute philo-

58 Watson's [340

sopher, who busies himself in searching them out,.
whilst he neglects to contemplate the harmony of al.
its parts, the Avisdom and goodness of God displayed
throughout the whole, appears to me to be like a pur-
blind man, who, in surveying a picture, objects to the
simplicity of the design and the beauty of the exe-
cution, from the asperities he has discovered in the
canvass and the coloring. The history of the Old
Testament, notwithstanding the real difficulties which
occur in it, notAvithstanding the scoffs and cavils of
unbelievers, appears to me to have such internal evi-
dences of its truth, to be so corroborated by the most
ancient profane histories, so confirmed by the present
circumstances of the world, that if I were not a Chris-
tian, I would become a Jew. You think this history
to be a collection of lies, contradictions, and blasphe-
mies : I look upon it to be the oldest, the truest, the
most comprehensive, and the most important history
in the world. I consider it as giving more satisfac-
tory proofs of the being and attributes of God, of the
origin and end of human kind, than ever was attained
by the deepest researches of the most enlightened
philosophers. The exercise of our reason in the in-
vestigation of truths respecting the nature of God
and the future expectations of human kind, is highly
useful ; but I hope I shall be pardoned by the meta-
physicians in saying that the chief utility of such
disquisitions consists in this — that they make us ac-
quainted with the weakness of our intellectual facul-
ties. I do not presume to measure other men by my
standard ; you may have clearer notions than I am
able to form of the infinity of space ; of the eternity
of duration ; of necessary existence ; of the connee-

341] REPLY TO PAINE. 59

tion between necessary existence and intelligence;
between intelligence and benevolence ; you may see
nothing in the universe but organized matter ; or, le
jecting a material, you may see nothing but an ideal
world. With a mind weary of conjecture, fatiguud
by doubt, sick of disputation, eager for knowledge,
anxious for certainty, and unable to attain it by the
best use of my reason in matters of the utmost im-
portance, I have long ago turned my thoughts to an
impartial examination of the proofs on which revealed
religion is grounded, and I am convinced of its truth.
This examination is a subject within the reach of hu-
man capacity : you have come to one conclusion res-
pecting it, I have come to another ; both of us cannot
be right ; may God forgive him that is in an error.

You ridicule, in a note, the story of an angel ap-
pearing to Joshua. Your mirth you will perceive to
be misplaced, when you consider the design of this
appearance ; it was to assure Joshua, that the same
God who had appeared to Moses, ordering him to pull off
his shoes, because he stood on holy ground, had now
appeared to himself. Was this no encouragement to
a man who was about to engage in war with many
nations? Had it no tendency to confirm his faith?
Was it no lesson to him to obey in all things the com-
mands of God, and to give the glory of his conquest
to the author of them, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob ? As to your wit about pulling off the shoe, it ori-
ginates, I think, in your ignorance ; you ought to have
known that this rite was an indication of reverence to
the Divine presence ; and that the custom of entering
barefoot into their temples subsists, in some countries,
to this day.

29*

60 Watson's [342

You allow the book of Ezra to be a genuine book ;
but that the author of it may not escape without a
blow, you say that in matters of record it is not to be
depended on, and as a proof of your assertion, you
tell us that the total amount of the numbers who re-
turned from Babylon does not correspond with the
particulars ; and that every child may have an argu-
ment for its infidelity, you display the particulars, and
show your skill in arithmetic by summing them up.
And can you suppose that Ezra, a man of great learn-
ing, knew so little of science, so little of the lowest
branch of science, that he could not give his readers
the sum-total of sixty particular sums ? You know
undoubtedly that the Hebrew letters denoted also
numbers ; and that there is such a similarity between
some of these letters that it was extremely easy for a
transcriber of a manuscript to mistake a 2 for a d (or
2 for 20) a 3 for a 2 (or 3 for 50) a 1 for a n (or a 5
for 200.) Now, what have we to do with numerical
contradictions in the Bible, but to attribute them^
wherever they occur, to this obvious source of error —
the inattention of the transcriber in writing one lette.
for another that was like it ?

I should extend these letters to a length troublesome
to the reader, to you, and to myself, if I answered mi-
nutely every objection you have made, and rectified
every error into which you have fallen ; it may be suf-
ficient briefly to notice some of the chief

The character represented in Job under the name ol
Satan, is, you say, " the first and the only time this
name is mentioned in the Bible." Now, I find thisi
name, as denoting an enemy, frequently occurring 11
the Old Testament : thus, 2 Sam. 19 : 22, '• What hav

i

343] REPLY TO PAINE. 61

I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should
this day be adversaries unto me ?" In the original it is,
satans unto me. Again, 1 Kings, 5 : 4, " The Lord
my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there
is neither adversary nor evil occurrent." In the origi-
nal, neither Satan nor evil. I need not mention other
places ; these are sufficient to show that the word Sa-
tan, denoting an adversary, does occur in various places
of the Old Testament ; and it is extremely probable to
me, that the root Satan was introduced in the Hebrew
and other eastern languages to denote an adversary,
from its having been the proper name of the great ene-
my of mankind. I know it is an opinion of Voltaire,
that the word satan is not older than the Babylonian
captivity : this is a mistake, for it is met vv^ith in the
hundred and ninth psalm, which all allow to have been
written by David, long before the captivity. Now we
are upon this subject, permit me to recommend to your
consideration the universality of the doctrine concern-
ing an evil being, who, in the beginning of time, had op-
posed himself, who still continues to oppose himself to
the supreme source of all good. Amongst all nations, in
all ages, this opinion prevailed, that human affairs were
subject to the will of the gods, and regulated by their in-
terposition. Hence has been derived wha'ever we have
read of the wandering stars of t ;e Chaldeans, two of
them beneficent and two malignant — hence the Egyp-
tian Typho and Osiris — the Persian Arimanius and
Oromasdes — the Grecian celestial Siud infernal Jove —
the Brama and the Zwpay of the Indians, Peruvians,
Mexicans — the good and evil principle, by whatever
names they may be called, of all other barbarous na-
tions— and hence the structure of the whole book of Job,

62 Watson's [344

in whatever light, of history or drama, it may be con-
sidered. Now, does it not appear reasonable to suppose
that an opinion so ancient and so universal has arisen
from tradition concerning the fall of our first parents ;
disfigured, indeed, and obscured, as all traditions must
be, by many fabulous additions ?

The Jews, you tell us, " never prayed but when they
were in trouble." I do not believe this of the Jews;
but that they prayed more fervently when they were
in trouble than at other times, may be true of the Jews
and I apprehend is true of all nations and of all indi-
viduals. But " the Jews never prayed for any thing
but victory, vengeance, and riches." Read Solomon'3
prayer at the dedication of the temple, and blush foi
your assertion — illiberal and uncharitable in the ex
treme !

It appears, you observe, " to have been the custom
of the heathens to personify both virtue and vice by
statues and images, as is done now-a-days both by
statuary and painting ; but it does not follow from this
that they worshiped them any more than we do." Not
worshiped them ! What think you of the golden image
which Nebuchadnezzar set up ? Was it not worshiped
by the princes, the rulers, the judges, the people, the
nations, and the languages of the Babylonian empire?
Not worshiped them ! What think you of the decree
of the Roman senate for fetching the statue of the mo-
ther of the gods from Pessinum ? Was it only that
they might admire it as a piece of workmanship ? Not
worshiped them ! " What man is there that knowetli
not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshiper
of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which
fell down from Jupiter?" Not worshiped them! The

345] REPLY TO PAINE. 63

■worship was universal. " Every nation made gods of
their own, and put them in the houses of their high-
places, Avliich the Samaritans had made — the men ot
Babylon made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth
made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima,
and the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Se-
pharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech
and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim." (2 Kings,
chap. 17.) The heathens are much indebted to you for
this curious apology for their idolatry ; for a mode of
worship the most cruel, senseless, impure, abomina-
ble, that can possibly disgrace the faculties of the hu-
man mind. Had this your conceit occurred in ancient
times, it might have saved Micali's teraphims, the
golden calves of Jeroboam and of Aaron, and quite
superseded the necessity of the second commandment.
Heathen morality has had its advocates before you ;
the facetious gentleman who pulled off his hat to the
statue of Jupiter, that he might have a friend when
heathen idolatry should again be in repute, seems to
have had some foundation for his improper humor,
some knowledge that certain men, esteeming them-
selves great philosophers, had entered into a conspira-
cy to abolish Christianity, some foresight of the con-
sequences which will certainly attend their success.
It is an error, you say, to call the Psalms the Psalms
of David. This error was observed by St. Jerome ma-
ny hundred years before you were born; his words
are, " We know that they are in error who attribute
all the Psalms to David." You, I suppose, will not
deny that David wrote some of them. Songs are of
various sorts ; we have hunting songs, drinking songs,
fighting songs, love songs, foolish, wanton, v/icked

64 watson'8 [34C

songs ; if you will have the " Psalms of David to be
nothing but a collection from different song-writers,"
you must allow that the writers of them were inspireil
by no ordinary spirit ; that it is a collection incapable
of being degraded by the name you give it; that it
greatly excels every other collection in matter and in
manner. Compare the book of Psalms with the odes
of Horace or Anacreon, with the hymns of Callima-
chus, the golden verses of Pythagoras, the choruses of
the Greek tragedians, (no contemptible compositions
any of these,) and you will quickly see how greatly it
surpasses them all in piety of sentiment, in sublimity
of expression, in purity of morality, and in rational
theology.

As you esteem the Psalms of David a song-book,
it is consistent enough in you to esteem the Proverbs
of Solomon a jest-book: there have not come down
to us above eight hundred of his jests ; if we had the
whole three thousand which he wrote, our mirth
would become extreme. Let us open the book, and
see what kind of jests it contains: take the very first
as a specimen : " The fear of the Lord is the begin-
ning of knowledge ; but fools despise wisdom and in-
struction." Do you perceive any jest in this? The
fear of the Lord ! What Lord does Solomon mean ?
He means the Lord who took the posterity of Abra-
ham to be his peculiar people ; who redeemed that
people from Egyptian bondage by a miraculous in-
terposition of his power ; who gave the law to Mo-
ses; who commanded the Israelites to exterminate
the nations of Canaan. Now this Lord you will
not fear; the jest says, you despise wisdom and
instruction. Let us try again. " My son, hear the

347] REPLY TO PAINE. 65

instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law
of thy mother," If your heart has been ever tou(:h-
ed by parental feelings you will see no jest in this.
Once more. "My son, if sinners entice thee, con-
sent thou not," These are the three first proverbs
in Solomon's "jest-book j" if you read it through, it
may not make you merry ; I hope it will make you
wise ; that it will teach you, at least, the beginning
of wisdom — the fear of that Lord whom Solomon
feared. Solomon, you tell us, was witty ; jesters are
sometimes witty : but though all the world, from the
time of the queen of Sheba, has heard of the wisdom
of Solomon, his wit was never heard of before. There
is a great difference, Mr, Locke teaches us, between
wit and judgment, and there is a greater between wit
and wisdom, Solomon "was wiser than Ethan the
Ezahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the
sons of Mahol." These men you may think were
jesters ; and so you may call the seven wise men of
Greece ; but you will never convince the world that
Solomon, who was wiser than them all, was nothing
but a witty jester. As to the sins and debaucheries
of Solomon, we have nothing to do with them but to
avoid them ; and to give full credit to his experience,
when he preaches to us his admirable sermon on the
vanity of every thing but piety and virtue,

Isaiah has a greater share of your abuse than any
other writer in the Old Testament, and the reason of
It is obvious — the prophecies of Isaiah have received
such a full and circumstantial completion, that unless
you can persuade yourself to consider the whole book
(a few historical sketches excepted) "as one conti-
nued bombastical rant, full of extravagant metaphor,

66 Watson's [348

Avitliout application, and destitute of meaning," you
must of necessity allow its divine authority. You
compare the burden of Babylon, the burden of Moab,
the burden of Damascus, and the other denunciations
of the prophet against cities and kingdoms, to the
story "of the knight of the burning mountam, the
story of Cinderella, &c." I may have read these
stories, but I remember nothing of the subjects of
them ; I have read also Isaiah's burden of Babylon,
and I have compared it with the past and present
state of Babylon, and the comparison has made such
an impression on my mind, that it will never be ef-
faced from my memory. I shall never cease to be-
lieve that the Eternal alone, by whom things future
are more distinctly known than past or present things
are to man, that the eternal God alone could have
dictated to the prophet Isaiah the subject of the
burden of Babylon.

The latter part of the forty-fourth and the begin-
ning of the forty-fifth chapter of Isaiah are, in your
opinion, so far from being written by Isaiah, that they
could only have been written by some person who
lived at least an hundred and fifty years after Isaiah
was dead. These chapters, you go on, " are a com-
pliment to Cyrus, who permitted the Jews to return
to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity, above
aw hundred and fifty years after the death of Isaiah."
Anl is it for this, sir, that you accuse the church
of audacity, and the priests of ignorance, in imposing,
as you call it, this book upon the world as the writing
of Isaiah ? What shall be said of you, who, either de-
signedly or ignorantly, represent one of the most clear
and important prophecies in the Bible as an histori-

349] REPLY TO PAINE. 67

cal compliment, written above an hundred and fifty
years after the death of the prophet ? We contend,
sir, that this is a prophecy and not a history ; that God
called Cyrus by his name, declared that he should
conquer Babylon, and described the means by which
he should do it, above an hundred years before Cyrus
was born, and when there was no probability of such
an event. Porphyry could not resist the evidence of
DanieVs prophecies, but by saying that they were
forged after the events predicted had taken place;
Voltaire could not resist the evidence of the predic-
tion of Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusa-
lem, but by saying that the account was written after
Jerusalem had been destri^yed; and you, at length,
(though, for aught I know, you may have had prede-
cessors in this presumption) unable to resist the evi-
dence of Isaiah's prophecies, contend that they are
bombastical rant, without application, though the ap-
plication is circumstantial; and destitute of meaning,
though the meaning is so obvious that it cannot be
mistaken; and that one of the most remarkable of
them is not a prophecy, but a historical compliment
written after the event. We will not, sir, give up
Daniel and St. Matthew to the impudent assertions
of Porphyry and Voltaire, nor will we give up Isaiah
to your assertion. Proof, proof is what we require,
and not assertion; we will not relinquish our religion
in obedience to your abusive assertion respecting the
prophets of God. That the wonderful absurdity of
this hypothesis may be more obvious to you, I beg
you to consider that Cyrus was a Persian, had been
brought up in the religion of his country, and was
probably addicted to the magian superstition of two

30 Ufidelity.

68 Watson's [350

independent beings equal in power but different in
principle, one the author of light and of all good, the
other the author of darkness and all evil. Now, is it
probable that a captive Jew, meaning to compliment
the greatest prince in the world, should be so stupid
as to tell the prince his religion was a lie ? " I am the
Lord, and there is none else: I form the light and
create darkness, I make peace and create evil : I the
Lord do all these things."

But if you will persevere in believing that the pro-
phecy concerning Cyrus was written after the event,
peruse the burden of Babylon : was that also written
after the event? Were the Medes then stirred up
against Babylon? Was Babylon, the glory of the
kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees, then over-
thrown, and become as Sodom and Gomorrah ? Was
it then uninhabited ? Was it then neither fit for the
Arabian's tent nor the shepherd's fold ? Did the wild
beasts of the desert then lie there ? Did the wild
beasts of the islands then cry in their desolate houses,
and dragons in their pleasant places ? Were Nebu-
chadnezzar and Belshazzar, the son and the grand-
son, then cut off? Was Babylon then become a pos-
session of the bittern, and pools of water ? Was it
then swept with the besom of destruction, so swept
that the world knows not where to find it ?

I am unwilling to attribute bad designs, deliberate
wickedness to you or to any man ; I cannot avoid be-
lieving that you think you have truth on your side
and that you are doing service to mankind in endea
voring to root out what you esteem superstition. What
I blame you for is this — that you have attempted to
lessen the authority of the Bible by ridicule more

351] REPLY TO PAINE. 69

thaa by reason ; that you have brought forward every
petty objection which your ingenuity could discover,
or your industry pick up from the writings of others,
and, without taking any notice of the answers which
have been repeatedly given to these objections, you
urge and enforce them as if they were new. There
is certainly some novelty at least in your manner, for
you go beyond all others in boldness of assertion and
in profaneness ot argumentation ; Bolingbroke and
Voltaire must yield the palm of scurrility to Thomas
Paine.

Permit me to state to you what would, in my opi-
nion, have been a better mode of proceeding — better
suited to the character of an honest man, sincere in
his endeavors to search out truth. Such a man, in
reading the Bible, would, in the first place, examine
whether the Bible attributed to the Supreme Being
any attributes repugnant to holiness, truth, justice,
goodness ; whether it represented him as subject to
human infirmities ; whether it excluded him from the
government af the world, or assigned the origin of
it to chance and an eternal conflict of atoms. Find-
ing nothing of this kind in the Bible, (for the destruc-
tion of the Canaanites by his express command I
have shown not to be repugnant to his moral justice,)
he would, in the second place, consider that the Bible
being, as to many of its parts, a very old book, and
written by various authors and at different and dis-
tant periods, there might probably occur some diffi-
culties and apparent contradictions in the historical
part of it ; he would endeavor to remove these diffi-
culties, to reconcile these apparent contradictions, by
the rules of such sound criticism as he would use m

70 Watson's [352

examining the contents of any other book ; and if he
found that most of them were of a trifling nature,
arising from short additions inserted into the text as
explanatory and supplemental, or from mistakes and
omissions of transcribers, he would infer that all the
rest were capable of being accounted for, though he
was not able to do it ; and he would be the more will-
ing to make this concession, from observing that
there ran through the whole book a harmony and con-
nection utterly inconsistent with every idea of forgery
and deceit. He would then, m the third place, ob-
serve that the miraculous and historical parts of this
book were so intermixed that they could not be sepa-
rated, and that they must either both be true, or both
false ; and from finding that the historical part was as
well or better authenticated than that of any other
history, he would admit the miraculous part ; and to
confirm himself in this belief, he would advert to the
pr®phecies, well knowing that the prediction of
things to come was as certain a proof of the Divine
interposition as the performance of a miracle could
be. If he should find, as he certainly would, that
many ancient prophecies had been fulfilled in all their
circumstances, and that some were fulfilling at this
very day, he would not suffer a few seeming or
real difficulties to overbalance the weight of the accu
mulated evidence for the truth of the Bible. Such,
I presume to think, would be a proper conduct in all
those who are desirous of forming a rational and im-
partial judgment on the subject of revealed religion.

To return —

As to your observation that the book of Isaiah is
^at least in translation) that kind of composition and

353J REPLY TO PAINE. 71

ftilse taste which is properly called prose run mad,
I have only to remark that your taste for Hebrew
poetry, even judging of it from the translation, would
be more correct if you would suflfer yourself to be
informed on the subject by Bishop Lowth, who tells
you in his Prelections — " that a poem translated
literally from the Hebrew into any other language,
whilst the same forms of the sentences remain, will
still retain, even as far as relates to versification, much
cf its native dignity, and a faint appearance of versi-
fication." If this is what you mean by prose run
mad, your observation may be admitted.

You explain at some length your notion of the mis-
application made by St. Matthew of the prophecy in
Isaiah — " Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a
son." That passage has been handled largely and
minutely by almost every commentator, and it is too
important to be handled superficially by any one. I
am not on the present occasion concerned to explain
It. It is quoted by you to prove — and it is the only
instance you produce — that Isaiah was " a lying pro-
phet and an impostor." Now, I maintain that this
very instance proves that he was a true prophet, and
no impostor. The history of the prophecy, as deli-
vered in the seventh chapter, is this : Rezin king of
Syria, and Pekahking of Israel, made war upon Ahaz
king of Judah ; not merely, or, perhaps, not at all, for
the sake of plunder or the conquest of territory, but
with a declared purpose of making an entire revolu-
tion in the government of Judah, of destroying the
royal house of David, and of placing another family
on the throne. Their purpose is thus expressed — '• Let
us go up against Judah and vex it, and let us make a
30*

72 Watson's [354

breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it,
even the son of Tabeal." Now, what did the Lord
commission Isaiah to say to Ahaz? Did he commis-
sion him to say, the kings shall not Tex thee? No.
The kings shall not conquer thee ? No. The kings
shall not succeed against thee? No. He commis-
sioned him to say : " It (the purpose of the two kings)
shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass." I de-
mand, did it stand ? did it come to pass? Was any
revolution effected ? Was the royal house of David
dethroned and destroyed? Was Tabeal ever made
king of Judah ? No. The prophecy was perfectly
accomplished. You say, " Instead of these two kings
failing in their attempt against Ahaz, they succeeded ;
Ahaz was defeated and destroyed." I deny the fact ;
Ahaz was defeated, but was not destroyed ; and even
the " two hundred thousand women, and sons, and
daughters," whom you represent as carried into cap-
tivity, were not carried into captivity ; they were made
captives, but they were not carried into captivity ; for
the chief men of Samaria, being admonished by a pro-
phet, would not suffer Pekah to bring the captives into
the land — " They rose up and took the captives, and
with the spoil clothed all that were naked among them,
and arrayed them, and shod them, and gave them to
eat, and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the
feeble of them upon asses (some humanity, you see,
amongst those Israelites whom you every where re-
present as barbarous brutes) and brought them to
Jericho, the city of palm-trees, to their brethren."
2 Chron. 28 : 15. The kings did fail in their attempt;
their attempt was to destroy the house of David, and
to make a revolution ; but they made no revolution,

3563 REPLY TO PAINB. 73

they did not destroy the house of David ; for Ahaz
slept with his fathers, and Hezekiah his son, of the
house of David, reigned in his stead.

LETTER VI.

After what I conceive to be a great misrepresenta-
lion of the character and conduct of Jeremiah, you
bring forward an objection which Spinoza and others
before you had much insisted upon, though it is an ob-
jection which neither afiects the genuineness nor the
authenticity of the book of Jeremiah, any more than
the blunder of a bookbinder, in misplacing the sheets
of your performance, would lessen its authority. The
objection is, that the book of Jeremiah has been put
together in a disordered state. It is acknowledged that
the order of time is not every where observed ; but the
cause of the confusion is not known. Some attribute
It to Baruch collecting into one volume all the seve-
ral prophecies which Jeremiah had written, and neg-
lecting to put them in their proper places. Others
think that the several paits of the work were at first
properly arranged, but that, through accident or the
carelessness of transcribers, they were deranged.
Others contend that there is no confusion ; that pro-
phecy differs from history in not being subject to an
accurate observance of time and order. But, leaving
this matter to be settled by critical discussion, let us
come to a matter of greater importance — to your charge
against Jeremiah for his duplicity, and for his false
prediction. First, as to his duplicity.

Jeremiah, on account of his having boldly predicted
the destruction of Jerusalem, had been thrust into a

74 Watson's [356

miry dungeon by the princes of Judah who sought his
life ; there he would have perished had not one of the
eunuchs taken compassion on him and petitioned king
Zedekiah in his favor, saying, " These men (the
princes) have done evil in all that they have done to
Jeremiah the prophet, (no small testimony this of the
probity of the prophet's character,) whom they have
cast into the dungeon, and he is like to die for hun-
ger." On this representation Jeremiah was taken out
of the dungeon by an order from the king, who soon
afterwards sent privately for him, and desired him to
conceal nothing from him, binding himself by an oath,
that, whatever might be the nature of his prophecy, he
would not put him to death, or deliver him into the
hands of the princes who sought his life. Jeremiah de-
livered to him the purpose of God respecting the fate
of Jerusalem. The conference being ended, the king,
anxious to perform his oath to preserve the life of the
prophet, dismissed him, saying, " Let no man know of
these words, and thou shalt not die. But if the princes
hear that I have talked with thee, and they come unto
thee, and say unto thee. Declare unto us now what
thou hast said unto the king, hide it not from us, and
we will not put thee to death ; also what the king said
unto thee : then thou shalt say unto them, I presented
my supplication before the king, that he would not
cause me to return to Jonathan's house to die there.
Then came all the princes unto Jeremiah and asked
him, and he told them according to all these words
that the king hr.d commanded." Thus, you remark,
"this man of God, as he is called, could tell a lie, or
very strong)/ prevaricate; for certainly he did not go
fo Zedeki'uh to make his supplication, neither did he

357] REPLY TO PAINE. 75

make it." It is not said that he told the princes he
went to make his supplication, but that he presented
it. Now, it is said in the preceding chapter that he did
make the supplication, and it is probable that in this
conference he renewed it ; but be that as it may, I con-
tend that Jeremiah was not guilty of duplicity, or, in.
more intelligible terms, that he did not violate any law
of nature or of civil society, in what he did on this
occasion. He told the truth, in part, to save his life ;
and he was under no obligation to tell the whole to
men who were certainly his enemies, and no good
subjects to his king. " In a matter (says Puffendorf )
which I am not obliged to declare to another, if I can-
not, with safety, conceal the whole, I may fairly dis-
cover no more than a part." Was Jeremiah under any
obligation to declare to the princes what had passed
m his conference with the king? You may as well say
that the house of lords has a right to compel privy
counsellors to reveal the king's secrets. The king can-
not justly require a privy counsellor to tell a lie for
him, but he may require him not to divulge his coun-
sels 10 those who have no right to know them. Now
for the false prediction — I will give the description of
it in your own words.

In the 34th chapter is a prophecy of Jeremiah to Ze-
dekiah, m these words, ver. 2 : " Thus saith the Lord,
Behold, I will give this city into the hands of the king
of Babylon, and will burn it with fire ; and thou sha. t
not escape out of his hand, but thou shalt surely b(5
taken and delivered into his hand; and thine eyes
shall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he
shall speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt
go to Babylon. Yet hear the word of the Lord^ O

76 Watson's [358

Zedekiah, king of Judah , thussaith the Lord, lliou
shalt not die by the sword, but thou shalt die in
peace; and with the burnings of thy fathers, the
former kings that were before thee, so shall they
burn odors for thee, and will lament thee, saying,
Ah ! Lord ! for I have 'pronounced the word, saith
the Lord.'^

" Now, instead of Zedekiah beholding the eyes of
the king of Babylon, and speaking with him mouth to
mouth, and dying in peace, and with the burning of
odors, as at the funeral of his fathers, (as Jeremiah
had declared the Lord himself had pronounced,) the
reverse, according to the 52d chapter, was the case ; it
is there stated, verse 10, ' that the king of Babylon
slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes ; then he
put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in chains,
and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till
the day of his death.' What can we say of these pro-
phets, but that they are impostors and liars ?" I can
say this, that the prophecy you have produced was ful-
filled in all its parts : and what then shall be said of
those who call Jeremiah a liar and an impostor ? Here
then we are fairly at issue — you affirm that the pro-
phecy was not fulfilled, and I affirm that it was ful-
filled in all its parts. " I will give this city into the
hands of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with
fire:" so says the prophet; what says the history?
" They (the forces of the king of Babylon) burnt the
house of God, anrd brake down the walls of Jerusalem.,
and burnt all the places thereof with fire." 2 Chron.
36 : 19. " Thou shalt not escape out of his hand, but
shalt surely be taken and delivered into his hand :''
so says the prophet j what says the history? "The

359] REPLY TO PAINE. 77

me^ of war fled by night, and the king went the «ray
towards the plain ; and the army of the Chaldees pur-
Bued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of
Jericho ; and all his army were scattered from him 5 so
they took the king and brought him up to the king of
Babylon, to Riblah." 2 Kings, 25 : 5. The prophet
goes on, " Thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the
king of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth
to mouth." No pleasant circumstance this to Zedekiah,
who had provoked the king of Babylon by revolting
from him ! The history says, '' The king of Babylon
gave judgment upon Zedekiah," or, as it is more lite-
rally rendered from the Hebrew, " Spake judgment
with him at Riblah." The prophet concludes this part
with, " And thou shalt go to Babylon ;" the history
says, " The king of Baby'on bound him in chains, and
carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the
day of his death." Jer. 52 : 11. "Thou shalt not die
by the sword." He did not die by the sword, he did
not fall in battle. " But thou shalt die in peace." He
did die in peace, he neither expired on the rack or on
the scaffold ; was neither strangled nor poisoned ; no
unusual fate of captive kings ! He died peaceably in
his bed, though that bed was in a prison. "And with
the burnings of thy fathers shall they burn odors for
thee." I cannot prove from the history that this part
of the prophecy was accomplished, nor can you prove
that it was not. The probability is, that it was ac-
complished ; and I have two reasons on which I ground
this probability. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego, to say nothing of other Jews, were men ol
great authority in the court of the king of Babylon, be-
fore and after the commencement of the imprisonment

78 Watson's [360

of Zedekiah; and Daniel continued in power till the
subversion of the kingdom of Babylon by Cyrus. Now,
it seems to me to be very probable that Daniel and
the other great men of the Jews would both have in-
clination to request, and influence enough with the
king of Babylon to obtain, permission to bury their de-
ceased prince Zedekiah after the manner of his fathers.
But if there had been no Jews at Babylon of conse-
quence enough to make such a request, still it is pro-
bable that the king of Babylon would have ordered the
Jews to bury and lament their departed prince after
the manner of their country. Monarchs, like other men,
are conscious of the instability of human condition ;
and when the pomp of war has ceased, when the inso-
lence of conquest is abated, and the fury of resentment
subsided, they seldom fail to revere royalty even in its
ruins ; and grant, without reluctance, proper obsequies
to the remains of captive kings.

You profess to have been particular in treating of
the books ascribed to Isaiah and Jeremiah. Particu-
lar! in what? You have particularized two or three
passages, which you have endeavored to represent as
objectionable, and which I hope have been shown, to
the reader's satisfaction, to be not justly liable to your
censure ; and you have passed over all the other parts
of these books without notice. Had you been parti-
cular in your examination, you would have found cause
to admire the probity and the intrepidity of the charac-
ters of the authors of them ; you would have met with
many instances of sublime composition, and, what is
of more consequence, with many instances of prophe-
tical veracity. Particularities of these kinds you have
^srhclxy overlooked. I cannot account for this ; I have

361] REPLY TO PAINE. 79

no right, no inclination to call you a dishonest man j
am I justified in considering you as a man not alto-
gether destitute of ingenuity, but so entirely under
the dominion of prejudice in every thing respecting
the Bible, that, like a corrupted judge, previously de-
termined to give sentence on one side, you are negli-
gent in the examination of the truth ?

You proceed to the rest of the prophets, and you
take them collectively, carefully however selecting
for your observations such peculiarities as are best
calculated to render, if possible, the prophets odious
or ridiculous in the eyes of your readers. You con-
found prophets with poets and musicians : I would
distinguish them thus : many prophets were poets
and musicians, but all poets and musicians were not
prophets. Prophecies were often delivered in poetic
language and measure ; but flights and metaphors of
the Jewish poets have not, as you affirm, been foolishly
erected into what are now called prophecies ; they
are now called, and have always been called, prophe-
cies ; because they were real predictions, some of
which have received, some are now receivmg, and all
will receive their full accomplishment.

That there were false prophets, witches, necroman-
cers, conjurers, fortune-tellers among the Jews, no
person will attempt to deny ; no nation, barbarous or
civilized, has been without them ; but when you
would degrade the prophets of the Old Testament to
a level with these conjuring, dreaming, strolling gen-
try ; when you would represent them as spending
I heir lives in fortune-telling, casting nativities, pre-
dicting riches, fortunate or unfortunate marriages,
conjuring for lost goods, &c. I must be allowed to
31 Infidelity.-

80 Watson's [362

say that you wholly mistake their office and misre-
present their character : their office was to convey to
the children of Israel the commands, the promises,
the ihrealenings of Almighty God ; and their charac-
ter was that of men sustaining, with fortitude, perse-
cution in the discharge of their duty. There were
false prophets in abundance amongst the Jews ; and if
you oppose these to the true prophets, and call them
both party prophets, you have the liberty of doing so,
but you will not thereby confound the distinction be-
tween truth and falsehood. False prophets are spo-
ken of with detestation in many parts of Scripture,
particularly by Jeremiah, who accuses them of pro-
phecy ing lies in the name of the Lord, saying, " I have
dreamed, I have dreamed. Behold, I am against the
prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues and
say, He saith; that prophecy false dreams, and cause
my people to err by their lies and by their lightness."
Jeremiah cautions his countrymen against giving
credit to their prophets, to their diviners, to their
dreamers, to their enchanters, to their sorcerers, which
speak unto you, saying, " Ye shall not serve the king
of Babylon." You cannot think more contemptibly
of these gentry than they were thought of by the true
prophets at the time they lived ; but, as Jeremiah says
on this subject, " what is the chaff to the wheat ?"
what are the false prophets to the true ones ? Every
thing good is liable to abuse ; but who argues against
the use of a thing from the abuse of it ? against phy-
sicians, because there are pretenders to physic? Was
Isaiah a fortune-teller predicting riches, when he said
to king Hezekiah. "Behold, the days come that all
that is in thine house, and that which rbv fathers have

363] REPLY TO PAINE. 8|[

laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to
Babylon : nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And
of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shall
beget, shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs
in the palace of the king of Babylon." Fortune-tellers
generally predict good luck to their simple customers,
that they may make something by their trade ; but
Isaiah predicts to a monarch desolation of his coun-
try and ruin of his family. This prophecy was spo-
ken in the year before Christ 713; and, above a
hundred years afterwards, it was accomplished ; when
Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, and carried out
thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and
the treasures of the king's house, (2 Kings, 24 : 13,)
and v/hen he commanded the master of the eunuchs
(Dan. 1:3,) that he should take certain of the children
of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes,
and educate them for three years, till they were able
to stand before the king.

Jehoram king of Israel, Jehoshaphat king of Judah,
and the king of Edom, going with their armies to
make war on the king of Moab, came into a place
where there was no water either for their men or cat-
tle. In this distress they waited upon Elisha (a high
honor for one of your conjurers) by the advice of Je-
hoshaphat, who knew that the word of the Lord was
with him. The prophet, on seeing Jehoram, an idol-
atrous prince, who had revolted from the worship of
the true God, come to consult him, said to him, " Get
ihee to the prophets of thy father and the prophets of
thy mother." This, you think, shows Elisha to have
been a party prophet, full of venom and vulgarity. It
shows hira to have been a man of great courage, who

82 Watson's ' 361

respected the dignity of his own character, the sacred-
ness of his office as a prophet of G'"d, whose duty it
was to reprove the wickedness of kings, as of other
men. He ordered them to make the valley where
they were, full of ditches. This, you say, "every
countryman could have told, that the way to get wa-
ter was to dig for it." But this is not a true repre-
sentation of the case : the ditches were not dug that
water might be got by digging for it, but that they
might hold the water when it should miraculously
come, " without wind or rain," from another country ;
and it did come " from the way of Edom, and the
country was filled with water." As to Elisha's curs-
ing the little children who had mocked him, and their
destruction in consequence of his imprecation, the
whole story must be taken together. The provoca-
tion he received is, by some, considered as an insult
ofiered to him, not as a man, but as a prophet ; and
that the persons who offered it were not v.'hat we un-
derstand by little children, but grown up youths ; the
term child being applied, in the Hebrew language, to
grown up persons. Be this as it may, the cursing
was the act of the prophet ; had it been a sin, it would
not have been followed by a miraculous destruction
of the offenders ; for this was the act of God, who
best knows who deserve punishment. "What effect
such a signal judgment had on the idolatrous inhabi-
tants of the land, is nowhere said ; but it is probable
it was not without a good effect.

Ezekiel and Daniel lived during the Babylonian
captivity; you allow their writings to be genuine. In
this you differ from some of the greatest adversaries
of Christianity ; and, in my opinion, cut up, by this

365J REPLY TO PAINE. 83

concession, the very root of your whole performance.
It is next to an impossibility for any man, who ad-
mits the book of Daniel to be a genuine book, and
who examines that book with intelligence and impar-
tiality, to refuse his assent to the truth of Christi-
anity. As to your saying that the interpretations
which commentators and priests have made of these
Dooks only show the fraud, or the extreme folly to
which credulity and priestcraft can go, I consider it
as nothing but a proof of the extreme folly or fraud
to which prejudice and infidelity can carry a minute
philosopher. You profess a fondness for science ; I
will refer you to a scientific man, who was neither a
commentator nor a priest — to Ferguson. In a tract
entitled " The year of our Savior's crucifixion ascer-
tained; and the darkness, at the time of his cruci-
fixion proved to be supernatural," this real philosopher
interprets the remarkable prophecy in the 9th chapter
of Daniel, and concludes his dissertation in the follow-
ing words : " Thus we have an astronomical demon-
stration of the truth of this ancient prophecy, seeing
that the prophetic year of the Messiah's being cut off
was the very same with the astronomical." I have
somewhere read an account of a solemn disputation
which was held at Venice, in the last century, be-
tween a Jew and a Christian : the Christian strongly
argued from Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks,
that Jesus was the Messiah whom the Jews had loag
expected, from the predictions of their prophets , the
learned Rabbi who presided at this disputation, was
so forcibly struck by the argument that he put an end
to the business by saying, " Let us ssSut up our Bi-
bles ; for if we proceed in the examination of this ^to-
31*

84 Watson's [366

phecy, it will make us all become Christians." Was
it a similar apprehension which deterred you from so
much as opening the book of Daniel ? You have not
produced from it one exceptionable passage. I hope
you will read that book with attention, with intelli-
gence, and with an unbiassed mind follow the advice
of our Savior when he quoted this prophecy, " Let
him that readeth understand," and I shall not despair
of your conversion from deism to Christianity.

In order to discredit the authority of the books
which you allow to be genuine, you form a strange
and prodigious hypothesis concerning Ezekiel and
Daniel, for which there is no manner of foundation
either in history or probability. You suppose these
two men to have had no dreams, no visions, no reve-
lations from God Almighty ; but to have pretended to
these things; and, under that disguise, to have carried
on an enigmatical correspondence relative to the re-
covery of their country from the Babylonian yoke.
That any man in his senses should frame or adopt
such an hypothesis, and should have so little regard
to his own reputation as au impartial inquirer after
truth, so little respect for the understanding of his
readers, as to obtrude it on the world, would have ap-
peared an incredible circumstance, had not you made
it a fact.

You quote a passage from Ezekiel: m the 29th
chapter, ver. 11, speaking of Egypt, it is said, "No
foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast
shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited
forty years :" this, you say, " never came to pass, and
consequently it is false, as all the books I have already-
reviewed are." Now that this did come to pass, we

36?] REPLY TO PAINE. 85

have, as Bishop Newton observes, " the testimonies
of Megasthenes and Berosus, two heathen historians,
who lived about 300 years before Christ ; one of whom
affirms expressly that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the
greater part of Africa ; and the other affirms it in ef-
fect, in saying, that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of
the death of his father, having settled his affairs iti
Egypt, and committed the captives whom he took in
Egypt to the care of some of his friends to bring them
after him, he hasted directly to Babylon." And if we
had been possessed of no testimony in support of the
prophecy, it would have been a hasty conclusion that
the prophecy never came to pass ; the history of Egypt,
at so remote a period, being no where accurately and
circumstantially related. I admit that no period can
be pointed out, from the age of Ezekiel to the present,
in which there was no foot of man or beast to be seen
for forty years in all Egypt ; but some think that only
a part of Egypt is here spoken of; and surely you do
not expect a literal accomplishment of a hyperbolical
expression, denoting great desolation ; importing that
the trade of Egypt, which was carried on then, as at
present, by caravans, by the foot of man and beast,
should be annihilated. Had you taken the trouble to
have looked a little further into the book from which
you have made your quotation, you would have there
seen a prophecy delivered above two thousand years
ago, and which has been fulfilling from that time to
this : " Egypt shall be the basest of the kingdoms, nei
ther shall it exalt itself any more above the nations —
there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt."
This you may call a dream, a vision, a lie : I esteem
it a wonderful prophecy ; for " as is the prophecy, so

86 Watson's (368

has been the event. Egypt was conquered by the
Babylonians; and after the Babylonians, by the Per-
sians ; and after the Persians it became subject to the
Macedonians; and after the Macedonians, to the Ro-
mans ; and after the Romans, to the Saracens; and
then to the Mamelukes ; and is now a province of the
Turkish empire."

Suffer me to produce to you from this author, not an
enigmatical letter to Daniel respecting the recovery
of Jerusalem from the hands of the king of Babylon,
but an enigmatical prophecy concerning Zedekiah the
king of Jerusalem, before it was taken by the Chal-
deans ; " I will bring him (Zedekiah) to Babylon, to
the land of the Chaldeans ; yet he shall not see it,
though he shall die there." How ! not see Babylon,
when he should die there ? How, moreover, is this
consistent, you may ask, with what Jeremiah had
foretold — that Zedekiah should see the eyes of the
king of Babylon? This darkness of expression, and
apparent contradiction between the two prophets, in-
duced Zedekiah (as Josephus informs us) to give no
credit to either of them ; yet he unhappily experienced
(and the fact is worthy of your observation) the truth
of them both. He saw the eyes of the king of Baby-
lon, not at Babylon, but at Riblah ; his eyes were
there put out ; and he was carried to Babylon, yet he
saw it not ; and thus were the predictions of both
the prophets verified, and the enigma of Ezekial ex-
plamed.

As to your wonderful discovery that the piophecy
of Jonah is a book of some Gentile, " and that it has
been written as a fable, to expose the nonsense and
to satirize the vicious and malignant character of t

369] REPLY TO PAINE. 87

Pible prophet, or a predicting priest," I shall put it
on the same shelf with your hypothesis concerning
the conspiracy of Daniel and Ezekiel. and shall not
say another word about it.
' You conclude your objections to the Old Testa-
ment in a triumphant style 5 an angry opponent would
say, in a style of extreme arrogance and sottish self-
sufficiency. "I have gone," you say, "through the
Bible (mistaking here, as in other places, the Old Tes-
tament for the Bible) as a man would go through
a wood, with an ax on his shoulders, and fell trees :
here they lie ; and the priests, if they can, may
replant them. They may, perhaps, stick them in the
ground, but they will never grow." And is it pos-
sible that you think so highly of your performance
as to believe that you have thereby demolished the
authority of a book which Newton himself esteemed
the most authentic of all histories ; which, by its
celestial light illumines the darkest ages of antiquity ;
which is the touchstone whereby we are enabled to
distinguish between true and fabulous theology, be-
tween the God of Israel, holy, just, and good, and
the impure rabble of heathen Baalim ; which has been
tliought, by competent judges, to have afforded matter
for the laws of Solon, and a foundation for the philoso-
phy of Plato ; which has been illustrated by the labor
of learning in all ages and countries ; and been admir-
ed and venerated for its piety, its sublimity, its vera-
city, by all who were able to read and understand it ?
No, sir ; you have gone indeed through the wood,
with the best intention in the world to cut it down ;
but you have merely busied yourself in exposing to
vulgar contempt a few unsightly shrubs, which good

88 Watson's [370

men had wisely concealed from public view ; you
have entangled yourself m thickets of thorns and
briars ; you have lost your way on the mountains of
Lebanon ; the goodly cedar trees whereof, lamenting
the madness and pitying the blindness of your rage
against them, have scorned the blunt edge and the
base temper of your ax, and laughed, unhurt, at the
feebleness of your strokes.

In plain language, you have gone through the Old
Testament hunting after ditRculties ; and you have
found some real ones ; these you have endeavored to
magnify into insurmountable objections to the autho-
rity of the whole book. When it is considered that
the Old Testament is composed of several books,
written by different authors and at different periods,
from Moses to Malachi, comprising an abstracted his-
tory of a particular nation for above a thousand years,
I think the real difficulties which occur in it are much
fewer and of much less importance than could rea-
sonably have been expected. Apparent difficulties
you have represented as real ones, without hinting at
the manner in which they have been explained. You
have ridiculed things held most sacred, and calumni-
ated characters esteemed most venerable ; you have
excited the scoffs of the profane, increased the scep-
ticism of the doubtful, shaken the faith of the un-
learned, suggested cavils to the " disputers of this
world," and perplexed the minds of honest men who
wish to worship the God of their fathers in sincerity
and truth. This and more you have done in going
through the Old Testament ; but you have not so
much as glanced at the great design of the whole, at the
harmony and mutual dependance of the several parts

371] REPLY TO PAINE. 89

You have said nothing of the wisdom of God in se«
lecting a particular people from the rest of mankind,
not for their own sakes, but that they might witness
to the whole world, in successive ages, his existence
and attributes ; that they might be an instrument of
subverting idolatry, and of declaring the name of the
God of Israel throughout the whole earth. It was
through this nation that the Egyptians saw the won-
ders of God ; that the Canaanites (whom wickedness
had made a reproach to human nature) felt his judg-
ments; that the Babylonians issued their decrees,
'' that none should dare to speak amiss of the God of
Israel ; that all should fear and tremble before him ;"
and it is through them that you and I, and all the
world, are not at this day worshipers of idols. You
have said nothing of the goodness of God in promis-
ing that, through the seed of Abraham, all the nations
of the earth were to be blessed ; that the desire of all
nations, the blessing of Abraham to the Gentiles,
should come. You have passed by all the prophecies
respecting the coming of the Messiah: though they
absolutely fixed the time of his coming, and of his be-
ing cut ofi'; described his office, character, condition,
sufferings, and death, in so circumstantial a manner
that we cannot but be astonished at the accuracy of
their completion in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
You have neglected noticing the testimony of the
whole Jewish nation to the truth both of the natural
and miraculous facts recorded in the Old Testament.
That we may better judge of the weight of this testi-
mony, let us suppose that God should now manifest
himself to us, as we contend he did to the Israelites
m Egypt, in the desert, and in the land of Canaan •

00 Watson's [372

and that lie should continue these manifestations of
himself to our posterity for a thousand years or more,
punishing or rewarding them according as they diso-
beyed or obeyed his commands ; "what would you ex-
pect would be the issue ? You would expect that our
posterity would, in a remote period of time, adhere to
their God, and maintain, against all opronents, ihe
truth of the books in which the dispensations of God
to us and to our successors had been recorded. They
would not yield to the objections of men, who, not hav-
ing experienced the same divine government, should,
for want of such experience, refuse assent to their tes-
timony. No. They would be to the then surround-
ing nations, what the Jews are to us, witnesses of the
existence and of the moral government of God.

LETTER VII.

" The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon
the prophecies of the Old ; if so, it must follow the
fate of its foundation.^' Thus you open your attack
upon the New Testament; and I agree with you, that
the New Testament must follow the fate of the Old ;
and that fate is to remain unimpaired by such efforts
as you have made against it. The New Testament,
however, is not founded solely on the prophecies of
the Old. If a heathen from Athens or Rome, who
had never heard of the prophecies of the Old Testa-
ment, had been an eye-witness of the miracles ot
Jesus, he would have made the same conclusion that
the Jew Nicoderaus did : " Rabbi, v/e know that thou
art a teacher come from God ; for no man can do these
miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

373] REPLY TO PAINE. 91

Our Savior tells the Jews, " Had ye believed Mosesj
ye would have believed me ; for he wrote of me;" and
he bids them search the Scriptures, for they testified of
him. But, notwithstanding this appeal to the prophe-
cies of the Old Testament, Jesus said to the Jews,
" Though ye believe not me, believe the works "—
"believe me for the very works' sake." "If I had
not done among them the works which none other
man did, they had not had sin." These are sufficient
proofs that the truth of Christ's mission was not even
to the Jews, much less to the Gentiles, founded solely
on the truth of the prophecies of the Old Testament*
So that if you could prove some of these prophecies
to have been misapplied, and not completed in the per-
son of Jesus, the truth of the Christian religion would
not thereby be overturned. That Jesus of Nazareth
was the person in whom all the prophecies, direct and
typical, in the Old Testament, respecting the Messiah,
were fulfilled, is a proposition founded on those pro-
phecies, and to be proved by comparing them with
the history of his life. That Jesus was a prophet
sent from God, is one proposition ; that Jesus was the
prophet, the Messiah, is another ; and though he cer*
tainly was both a. prophet and the prophet, yet the
foundations of the proof of these propositions are
separate and distinct.

The mere existence " of such a woman as Mary
and of such a man as Joseph, and Jesus," is, you say,
a matter of indifference, about which there is no
ground either to believe or to disbelieve. Belief is
different from knowledge, with which you here seem
to confound it. We know that the whole is greater
than its parts — and we know that all the angles in

32 Infidelity

92 watson'b f374

the sarae segment of a circle are equal to each other —
we have intuition and demonstration as grounds of.
this knowledge ; but is there no ground for belief of
past or future existence ? Is there no ground for be-
lieving that the sun will exist to-morrow, and that
your father existed before you ? You condescend,
however, to think it probable that there were such per-
sons as Mary. Joseph, and Jesus ; and without troubling
yourself about their existence or non-exisience, assum-
ing, as it were, for the sake of argument, but vvithou/
positively granting their existence, you proceed to in-
form us "that it is the fable of Jesus Christ, as toU
in the New Testament, and the wild and visionarv
doctrine raised thereon," against which you contend.
You will not repute it a fable, that there was such
a man as Jesus Christ ; that he lived in Judea near
eighteen hundred years ago ; that he went about do-
ing good, and preaching, not only in the villages of
Galilee, but in the city of Jerusalem ; that he had
several followers, who constantly attended him ; that
he was put to death by Pontius Pilate ; that his dis-
ciples were numerous a few years after his death, not
only in Judea, but in Rome, the capital of the world,
and in every province of the Roman empire ; that a par-
ticular day has been observed in a religious manner
by all his followers, in commemoration of a real or
supposed resurrection ; and that the constant celebra-
tion of baptism, and of the Lord's supper, may be
traced back from the present time to him, as the au-
thor of those institutions. These things constitute,
I suppose, no part of your fable ; and if these things
be facts, they will, when maturely considered, draw
after them so many other things related in the New

375] REPLY TO PAINE. 93

Testament concerning Jesus, that there will be left
lor your fable but very scanty materials, which will re-
quire great fertility of invention before you will dress
them up into any form which will not disgust eten
a superficial observer.

The miraculous conception you esteem a fable, am'!
in your mind it is an obscene fable. Impure, indeed,
must that man's imagination be, who can discover
any obscenity in the angel's declaration to Mary,
" The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee : there-
fore that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee,
shall be called the Son of God." I wonder you do
not find obscenity in Genesis, where it is said, " The
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,"
and brought order out of confusion, a world out of
chaos, by his fostering influence. As to the Chris-
tian faith being built upon the heathen mythology,
there is no ground whatever for the assertion : there
would have been some for saying that much of the
heathen mythology was built upon the events record-
ed in the Old Testament.

You come now to a demonstration, or which amounts
to the same thing, to a proposition which cannot, you
say, be controverted. First, " That the agreement of
all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be
true, because the parts may agree, and the whole may
be false. Secondly, That the disagreement of the
parts of a story proves that the whole cannot be true.
The agreement does not prove truth, but the disagree-
ment proves falsehood positively." Great use, I per-
ceive, is to be made of this proposition. You will par-
don my unskillfulness in dialectics, if I presume to con-

94 Watson's [376

trovert the truth of this abstract proposition, as applied
to any purpose in life. The agreement of ihc parts of
a story implies that the story has been told by at least
two persons, (the life of Doctor Johnson, for instance,
by Sir John Hawkins and Mr. Boswell.) Now I think
it scarcely possible for even two persons, and the diffi-
culty is increased if there are more than two, to write
the history of the life of any one of their acquaintance
without there being a considerable difference between
them with respect to the, number and order of the in-
cidents of his life. Some things will be omitted by
one, and mentioned by the other ; some things will be
briefly touched by one, and the same things circum-
stantially detailed by the other ; the same things which
are mentioned in the same way by them both, may not
be mentioned as having happened exactly at the same
point of time, with other possible and probable differ-
ences. But these real or apparent difficulties in mi-
nute circumstances, will not invalidate their testimony
as to the material transactions of his life, much less
will they render the whole of it a fable. If several in-
dependent witnesses, of fair character, should agree in
all the parts of a story, (in testifying, for instance, that
a murder or a robbery was committed at a particular
time, in a particular place, and by a certain individual,)
every court of justice in the world would admit the
fact, notwithstanding the abstract possibility of the
whole being false. Again, if several honest men should
agree in saying that they saw the king of France be-
headed, though they should disagree as to the figure of
the guillotine or the size of his executioner, as to the
king's hands being bound or loose, as to his being com
posed or agitated in ascending the scaffold, yet every

377 J REPLY TO PAINE. 96

court of justice in the world would think that such
a difference respecting the circumstances of the fact did
not invalidate the evidence respecting the fact itself.
When you speak of the whole of a story, you cannot
mean every particular circumstance connected with
the story, but not essential to it ; you must mean the
pith and marrow of the story ; for it would be impos-
sible to establish ihe truth of any fact, (of Admirals
Byng or Keppel, for example, having neglected or not
neglected their duty,) if a disagreement in the evidence
of witnesses, in minute points, should be considered
as annihilating the weight of their evidence in points
of importance. In a word, the relation of a fact differs
essentially from the demonstration of a theorem. Tf
one step is left out, one link in the chain of ideas con-
stituting a demonstration is omitted, the conclusion
will be destroyed ; but a fact may be established, not-
withstanding the disagreement of the witnesses in cer-
tain trifling particulars of their evidence respecting it.
You apply your incontrovertible proposition to the
genealogies of Christ given by Matthew and Luke —
there is a disagreement between them ; therefore, you
say, " if Matthew speak truth, Luke speaks falsehood j
and if Luke speak truth, Matthew speaks falsehood ;
and thence there is no authority for believing either;
and if they cannot be believed even in the very first
thing they say and set out to prove, they are not enti-
tled to be believed in any thing they say afterwards."
I cannot admit either your premises or your conclu-
sion : not your conclusion ; because two authors, who
differ in tracing back the pedigree of an individual for
above a thousand years, cannot, on that account, be
esteemed incompetent to bear testimony to the trans
32*

96 watson's [378

actions of his life, unless an intention to falsify could
be proved against them. If two Welsh historians should
at this time write the life of any remarkable man ol
their country who had been dead twenty or thirty years,
and should, through different branches of their genea-
logical tree, carry up the pedigree to Cadwallon, would
they, on account of that difference, be discredited in
every thing they said ? Might it not be believed thai
they gave the pedigree as they had found it recorded
in different instruments, but without the least inten-
tion to write a falsehood. I cannot admit your premises ;
because Matthew speaks truth, and Luke speaks truth,
though they do not speak the same truth ; Matthew
giving the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father ol
Jesus, and Luke giving the genealogy of Mary, the real
mother of Jesus. If you will not admit this, other ex-
planations of the difficulty might be given ; but I hold
it sufficient to say, that the authors had no design to
deceive the reader; that they took their accounts from
the public registers, which were carefully kept ; and
that, had they been fabricators of these genealogies,
they would have been exposed at the time to instant
detection ; and the certainty of that detection would
have prevented them from making the attempt to im-
pose a false genealogy on the Jewish nation.

But that you may effectually overthrow the credit
of these genealogies, you make the following calcula-
tion : " From the birth of David to the birth of Christ
is upwards of 1080 years ; and as there were but 27 full
generations, to find the average age of each person
mentioned in St. Matthew's list at the time his first
son was born, it is only necessary to divide 1080 by
27, which gives 40 years for each person. As the life

379] REPLY TO PAINE, 97

time of man was then but of the same extent it is now,
jt is absurdity to suppose that 27 generations should
all be old bachelors before they married. So far from
this genealogy being a solemn truth, it is not even a
reasonable lie." This argument assumes the appear-
ance of arithmetical accuracy, and the conclusion is
m a style which even its truth would not excuse ; yet
ihe argument is good for nothing and the conclusion
is not true. You have read the Bible with some atten-
tion, and you are extremely liberal in imputing to it
lies and absurdities : read it over again, especially the
books of the Chronicles, and you will there find, that,
in the genealogical list of St. Matthew, three genera-
tions are omitted between Joram and Ozias ; Joram was^
the father of Azariah, Azariah of Joash, Joash of Ama-
ziah, and Amaziah of Ozias. I inquire not in this place
whence this omission proceeded ; whether it is to be
attributed to an error in the genealogical tables from
whence Matthew took his account, or to a corruption
of the text of the evangelist ; still it is an omission.
Now, if you will add these three generations to the
twenty-seven you mention, and divide one thousand
and eighty by thirty, you will find the average age
when these Jews had each of them their first son born
was thirty-six. They married sooner than they ought
to have done according to Aristotle, who fixes thirty-
seven as the most proper age when a man should
marry. Nor was it necessary that they should have
been old bachelors, though each of them had not a son
to succeed him till he was thirty-six ; they might have
been married at twenty, without having a son till they
were forty. You assume in your argument, that the
first born son succeeded the father in the list ; this is

98 WATS0N»9 [380

not true. Solomon succeeded David, yet David had
at least six sons who were grown to manhood before
Solomon was born ; and Rehoboam had at least three
sons before he had Abia, (Abijah,) who succeeded him.
It is needless to cite more instances to this purpose;
but from these, and other circumstances which might
be insisted upon, I can see no ground for believing
that the genealogy of Jesus Christ, mentioned by St.
Matthew, is not a solemn truth.

You insist much upon some things being mention-
ed by one evangelist, which are not mentioned by all,
or by any of the others ; and you take this to be a rea-
son why we should consider the Gospels, not as the
.works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but as the
productions of some unconnected individuals, each of
whom made his own legend. I do not admit the truth
of this supposition ; but I may be allowed to use it as
an argument against yourself: it removes every pos-
sible suspicion of fraud and imposture, and confirms
the Gospel history in the strongest manner. Four un-
connected individuals have each written memoirs of
the life of Jesus: from whatever source they derived
their materials, it is evident that ihey agree in a great
many particulars of the last importance ; such as the
purity of his manners, the sanctity of his doctrines,
the multitude and publicity of his miracles, the per-
secuting spirit of his enemies, the manner of his
death, and the certainty of his resurrection; and
whilst they agree in these great points, their disa-
greement in points of little consequence is rather a
confirmation of the truth, than an indication of the
falsehood of their several accounts. Had they agreed
in nothing, their testimony ought to have been reject-

J

381] REPLY TO PAINE. 99

ed as a legendary tale ; had they agreed in every thing,
it might ha'vfe been suspected that, instead of uncon-
nected individuals, they were a set of impostors. The
manner in which the evangelists have recorded the
particulars of the life of Jesus is wholly conformable
to what we experience in other biographers, and claims
our highest assent to its truth, notwithstanding the
force of your incontrovertible proposition.

As an instance of contradiction between the evan-
gelists, you tell us that Matthew says, the angel an
nouncing the immaculate conception appeared unto
Joseph ; but Luke says, he appeared unto Mary. The
angel, sir, appeared to them both ; to Mary, when he
informed her that she should, by the power of God,
conceive a son ; to Joseph, some months afterwards,
when Mary's pregnancy was visible ; in the interim
she had paid a visit of three months to her cousin
Elizabeth. It might have* been expected, that, from
the accuracy with which you have read your Bible,
you could not have confounded these obviously dis-
tinct appearances ; but men, even of candor, are lia-
ble to mistakes. Who, you ask, would now believe
a girl, who should say that she was gotten with child
by a ghost ? Who, but yourself, would ever have
asked a question so abominably indecent and profane ?
I cannot argue with you on this subject. You will
never persuade the world that the Holy Spirit of God
has any resemblance to the stage ghosts in Hamlet or
Macbeth, from which you seem to have derived your
idea of it.

The story of the massacre of* the young children
by the order of Herod, is mentioned only by Matthew ;
and therefore you think it is a lie. We must give up

100 Watson's [382

all history, if we refuse to admit facts recorded Dy only
one historian. Matthew addressed his Gospel to the
Jews, and put them in mind of a circumstance of
which they must have had a melancholy remem-
brance ; but Gentile converts were less interested in
that event. The evangelists were not writing the
life of Herod, but of Jesus ; it is no wonder then that
they omitted, above half a century after the death of
Herod, an instance of his cruelty which was not es-
sentially connected with their subject. The massa-
cre, however, was probably known even at Rome ;
and it was certainly correspondent to the character of
Herod. "John," you say, at the time of the massacre,
" was under two years of age, and yet he escaped ; so
that the story circumstantially belies itself." John
was six months older than Jesus ; and you cannot
prove that he was not beyond the age to which the
order of Herod extended; it probably reached no far-
ther than to those who had completed their first year,
without includmg those who had entered upon their se-
cond : but without insisting upon this, still I contend
that you cannot prove John to have been under two
years of age at the time of the massacre ; and I could
give many probable reasons to the contrary. Nor is
it certain that John was, at that time, in that part of
the country to which the edict of Herod extended.
But there would be no end of answering at length
all your little objections.

No two of the evangelists, you observe, agree in re-
citing, exactly in the same words, the written inscrip-
tion which was put over Christ when he was cruci-
fied. I admit that there is an unessential verbal dif-
ference J and are you certain that there was not a ver-

383] REPLY TO PAINE. 101

bal diflferencc in the inscriptions themselves ? One
was written in Hebrew, another in Greek, another in
Latin ; and though they all had the same meaning,
yet it is probable, that if two men had translated the
Hebrew and the Latin into Greek, there would have
been a verbal difference between their translations.
You have rendered yourself famous by writing a book
called The Rights of Man : had you been guillotined
by Robespierre, with this title, written in French,
English, and German, and affixed to the guillotine,
" Thomas Paine, of America, author of The Rights
of Man ;" and had four persons, some of whom had
seen the execution, and the rest had heard of it from
eye-witnesses, written short accounts of your life
twenty years or more after your death, and one had
said the inscription was, " This is Thomas Paine, the
author of The Rights of Man;'' another, " The au-
thor of The Rights of Man;" a third, "This is the
author of The Rights of Man ;" and a fourth, " Tho-
mas Paine, of America, the author of The Rights of
Man ;" would any man of common sense have doubt-
ed, on account of this disagreement, the veracity of
the authors in writing your life ? " The only one,"
you tell us, " of the men called apostles, who appears
to have been near the spot where Jesus was crucified,
was Peter." This your assertion is not true : we do
not know that Peter was present at the crucifixion ;
but we do know that John, the disciple whom Jesus
loved, was present ; for Jesus spoke to him from the
cross. You go on, "But why should we believe
Peter, convicted by their own account of perjury, in
swearing that he knew not Jesus ?" I will tell you
why ; because Peter sincerely repented of the wick-

102 WATsoN'^g [384

edness into which he had been betrayed, through fear
for his life, and suffered martyrdom in attestation of
the truth of the Christian religion.

But the evangelists disagree, you say, not only as to
the superscription on the cross, but as to the time of
the crucifixion, "Mark saying it was at the third hour,
(nine in the morning,) and John at the sixth hour,
(twelve, as you suppose, at noon.") Various solutions
have been given of this difficulty, none of which satis-
fied Doctor Middleton, much less can it be expected
that any of them should satisfy you ; but there is a so*
lution not noticed by him, in which many judicious
men have acquiesced, that John, writing his Gospel
in Asia, used the Roman method of computing time,
which was the same as our own ; so that by the sixth
hour, when Jesus was condemned^ we are to under-
stand six o'clock in the morning; the intermediate
time from six to nine, when he was crucified, being
employed in preparing for the crucifixion. But if this
difficulty should be still esteemed insuperable, it does
not follow that it will always remain so ; and if it
should, the main point, the crucifixion of Jesus, will
not be affected thereby.

I cannot, in this place, omit remarking some circum-
stances attending the crucifixion, which are so natural,
that we might have wondered if they had not occurred.
Of all the disciples of Jesus, John was beloved by him
with a peculiar degree of affection ; and, as kindness
produces kindness, there can be little doubt that the
regard was reciprocal. Now, whom should we expect
to be the attendants of Jesus in his last suffering?
Whom but John, the friend of his heart ? Whom but
his mother, whose soul was now pierced through by

i

385] REPLY TO PAINE. 103

the swcrd of sorrow, which Simeon had foretold?
Whom but those who had been attached to him
through life, who, having been healed by him of their
infirmities, were impelled by gratitude to minister to
him of their substance, to be attentive to all his wants ?
These were the persons whom we should have ex-
pected to attend his execution, and these were there.
To whom would an expiring son, of the best affections,
recommend a poor, and, probably, a widowed mother,
but to his warmest friend ? And this did Jesus. Un-
mindful of the extremity of his own torture, and anx-
ious to alleviate the burden of her sorrows, and to pro-
tect her old age from future want and misery, he said
to his beloved disciple, " Behold thy mother ! and from
that hour that disciple took her to his own home." I
own to you that such instances as these, of the con-
formity of events to our probable expectation, are to
me genuine marks of the simplicity and truth of the
Gospels ; and far outweigh a thousand little objections,
arising from our ignorance of manners, times, and cir-
cumstances, cr from our incapacity to comprehend the
means used by the Supreme Being in the moral go-
vernment cf his creatures.

St. Matthew mentions several miracles which at-
tended our Savior's crucifixion — the darkness which
overspread the land — the rending of the veil of the
temple — an earthquake which rent the rocks — and the
resurrection of many saints, and their going into the
noly city. " Such," you say, " is the account which
this dashing writer of the book of Matthew gives, but
in which he is not supported by the writers of the other
books." This is not accurately expressed; Matthew is
supported hy Mark and Luke, with respect to two of

33 Infidelity.

104 Watson's [386

the miracles— the darkness — and the rending of the
veil; and their omission of the others does not prove
that they were either ignorant of them, or disbelieved
them. I think it idle to pretend to say positively what
influenced them to mention only two miracles : they
probably thought them sufficient to convince any per
son, as they convinced the centurion, that Jesus " was
a righteous man, the Son of God." And these two
miracles were better calculated to produce general
conviction amongst the persons for whose benefit
Mark and Luke wrote their Gospels, than either the
earthquake or the resurrection of the saints. The earth-
quake was, probably, confined to a particular spot, and
might, by an objector, have been called a natural phe-
nomenon ; and those to whom the saints appeared might,
at the time of writing the Gospels of Mark and Luke,
have been dead ; but the darkness must have been ge-
nerally known and remembered, and the veil of the
temple might still be preserved at the time these au-
thors wrote. As to John not mentioning any of these
miracles — it is well known that his Gospel was writ-
ten as a kind of supplement to the other Gospels ; he
has therefore omitted many things which the other
three evangelists had related, and he has added seve-
ral things which they had not mentioned : in particu-
lar, he has added a circumstance of great importance;
he tells us that he saw one of the soldiers pierce the
side of Jesus with a spear, and that the blood and wa-
ter flowed through the wound ; and lest any one should
doubt of the fact, from its not being menlioned by the
other evangelists, he asserts it with peculiar earnest-
ness. " And he that saw it bare record, and his record
is true; and he knoweth that he saitli true, that ye

I:

387] REPLY TO PAINE. 105

might believe." John saw blood and water flowing
from the wound ; the blood is easily accounted for :
but whence came the water? The anatomists tell us
that it came from the 'pericardium ; so consistent is
evangelical testimony with the most curious researches
into natural science ! You amuse yourself with the ac-
count of what the Scripture calls many saints, and you
call an army of saints, and are angry with Matthew
for not having told you a great many things about them.
It is very possible that Matthew might have known
the fact of their resurrection without knowing every
thing about them ; but if he had gratified your curiosi-
ty in every particular, I am of opinion that you would
not have believed a word of what he had told you. I
have no curiosity on the subject; it is enough for me
to know that " Christ was the first fruits of them that
slept." and " that all that are in the graves shall hear
his voice and shall come forth," as those holy men did
who heard the voice of the Son of God at his resur-
rection, and passed from death to life. If I first in-
dulge myself in being wise above what is written, I
must be able to answer many of your inquiries rela-
tive to the saints ; but I dare not touch the ark of the
Lord, I dare not support the authority of the Scripture
by the boldness of conjecture. Whatever difficulty
there may be in accounting for the silence of the other
evangelists, and of St. Paul also on this subject, yet
there is a greater difficulty in supposing that Matthew
did not give a true narration of what had happened at
the crucifixion. If there had been no supernatural dark-
ness, no earthquake, no rending of the veil of the tem-
ple, no graves opened, no resurrection of holy men, no
appearance of them unto many — if none of these thinj^s

106 Watson's [383

had been true, or rather, if any one of fhem had been
false, what motive could Matthew, writing to the Jews,
have had for trumping up such wonderful stories ? He
wrote, as every man does, Avith an intention to be be-
lieved ; and yet every Jew he met would have stared
him in the face and told him that he was a liar and
an impostor. What author, who, twenty years hence,
should address to the French nation a history of Louis
XVI. would venture to affirm that when he was be-
headed there was darkness for three hours over all
France ? that there was an earthquake ? that rocks were
split? graves opened? and dead men bro-ight to life,
who appeared to many persons in Paris? It is q-iite
impossible to suppose that any one should dare to pub
lish such obvious lies ; and I think it equally impossi-
ble to suppose that Matthew would have dared to pub-
lish his account of what happened at the death of Jesus,
had not the account been generally known to be true.

LETTER Vm.

The " tale of the resurrection," you say, " follows
that of the crucifixion." You have accustomed me so
much to this kind of language, that when I find you
speaking of a tale, I have no doubt of meeting with a
truth. From the apparent disagreement in the ac-
counts which the evangelists have given of some cir
cumstances respecting the resurrection, you remark —
" If the writers of these books had gone into any court
of justice to prove an alibi, (for it is the nature of an
alibi that is here attempted to be proved, namely, the
si-bsence of a dead body by supernatural means,) and
have given their evidence in the same contradictory

389] REPLY TO PAINE. 107

manner as it is here given, they would have been in
danger of having their ears cropt for perjury, and
would have justly deserved it :" — " hard words, or
hanging," it seems, if you had been their judge. Now
I maintain that it is the brevity with which the ac-
count of the resurrection is given by all the evange-
lists which has occasioned the seeming confusion,
and that this confusion would have been cleared up at
once, if the witnesses of the resurrection had been exa-
mined before any judicature. As we cannot have this
viva voce examination of all the witnesses, let us call
up and question the evangelists as witnesses to a su-
pernatural alibi. Did you find the sepulchre of Jesus
empty ? One of us actually saw it empty, and the rest
heard, from eye-witnesses, that it was empty. Did you,
or any of the followers of Jesus, take away the dead
body from the sepulchre ? All answer, No. Did the
soldiers or the Jews take away the body ? No. How
are you certain of that? Because we saw the body
when it was dead, and saw it afterwards when it was
alive. How do you know that what you saw was the
body of Jesus ? We had been long and intimately ac-
quainted with Jesus, and knew his person perfectly.
Were you not affrighted, and mistook a spirit for a
body ? No ; the body had flesh and bones ; we are sure
that it was the very body which hung upon the cross,
for we saw the wound in his side, and the print of the
nails in the hands and feet. And to all this you are
ready to swear? We are ; and we are ready to die also,
sooner than we will deny any part of it. This is the
testimony which all the evangelists would give, in
whatever court of justice they were examined ; and
this, I apprehend, would sufficiently establish the alibi
33+

108 Watson's [390

of the dead body from the sepulchre by supernatural
means.

But as the rei^urrection of Jesus is a point which you
attack with all your force, I will examine minutely the
principal of your objections j I do not think them de-
serving of this notice, but they shall have it. The
book of Matthew, you say, " states that when Christ
was put in the sepulchre, the Jews applied to Pilate
for a watch or a guard to be placed over the sepulchre,
to prevent the body being stolen by the disciples." I
admit this account; but it is not the whole of the ac-
count ; you have omitted the reason for the request
which the chief priests made to Pilate : " Sir, we re-
member that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive,
after three days I will rise again." It is material to
remark this ; for at the very time that Jesus predicted
his resurrection, he predicted also his crucifixion, and
all that he should suffer from the malice of those very
men who now applied to Pilate for a guard. "He
showed to his disciples, how that he must go unto Je-
rusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief
priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again
the third day." Matthew, 16 : 21. These men knew
full well that the first part of this prediction had been
actually fulfilled through their malignity ; and instead
of repenting of what they had done, they wej-e so in-
fatuated as to suppose that by a guard of soldiers they
could prevent the completion of the second. The other
books, you observe, "say nothing about this applica-
tion, nor about the sealing of the stone, nor the guard,
nor the watch, and according to these accounts there
were none." This, Sir, I deny. The other books do
not say that there were none of these things : how of-

391] REPLY TO PAINE. 109

ten must I repeat, that omissions are not contradictions,
nor silence concerning a fact a denial of it ?

You go on : "The book of Matthew continues its ac-
count, that at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to
dawn, towards the first day of the week, came Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Mark says it was sun-rising, and John says it was
dark. Luke says it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna,
and Mary the mother of James, and other women that
came to the sepulchre. And John says that Mary
Magdalene came alone. So well do they all agree
about their first evidence ! They all appear, however,
to have known most about Mary Magdalene ; she was
a woman of a large acquaintance, and it was not an ill
conjecture that she might be upon the stroll," This
is a long paragraph : I will answer it distinctly. First,
there is no disagreement of evidence with respect to
the time when the women went to the sepulchre ; all
the evangelists agree as to the day on which they
went ; and, as to the time of the day, it was early in
the morning: what court of justice in the world would
set aside this evidence, as insufficient to substantiate
the fact of the women's having gone to the sepulchre,
because the witnesses differed as to the degree of twi-
light which lighted them on their way ? Secondly,
there is no disagreement of evidence with respect to
ive persons who went to the sepulchre. John states
that Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre; but he
does not state, as you make him state, that Mary Mag-
dalene went alone; she might, for any thing you have
proved, or can prove to the contrary, have been accom-
panied by all the women mentioned by Luke : is it an
unusual thing to distinguish by name a principal per-

110 Watson's [392

son going on a visit, or on an embassy, without men-
tioning his subordinate attendants? Thirdly, in oppo-
sition to your insinuation that Mary Magdalene was a
common woman, I wish it to be considered whether
there is any scriptural authority for that imputation ;
and whether there be or not, I must contend that a re-
pentant and reformed woman ought not to be esteemed
an improper witness of a fact. The conjecture which
you adopt concerning her is nothing less than an illi-
beral, indecent, unfounded calumny, not excusable in
the mouth of a libertine, and intolerable in yours.

" The book of Matthew," you observe, " goes on to
say, ' And behold, there was an earthquake, for the an-
gel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and
rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it ;
but the other books say nothing about an earthquake."
What then ? does their silence prove that there was
none ? " Nor about the angel rolling back the stone
and sitting upon it ;" what then ? does their silence
prove that the stone was not rolled back by an angel,
and that he did not sit upon it? "And according to
their accounts, there was no angel sitting there." This
conclusion I must deny : their accounts do not say
there was no angel sitting there at the time that Mat-
thew says he sat upon the stone. They do not deny
the fact, they simply omit the mention of it ; and they
all take notice that the women, when they arrived at
the sepulchre, found the stone rolled away : hence it
is evident that the stone was rolled away before Xht
women arrived at the sepulchre ; and the other evan
gelists, giving an account of what happened to the wo
men when they reached the sepulchre, have merely
omitted giving an account of a transaction previous

393] REPLY TO PAINE. Ill

to their arrival. Where is the contradiction ? What
space of time intervened between the rolling away the
stone and the arrival of the women at the sepulchre,
is no where mentioned ; but it certainly was long
enough for the angel to have changed his position;
from sitting on the outside he might have entered into
the sepulchre : and another angel might have made
his appearance ; or, from the first, there might have
been two, one on the outside, rolling away the stone,
and the other within. Luke, you tell us, " says there
were two, and they were both standing; and John
says there were two, and both sitting." It is impossi-
ble, I grant, even for an angel to be sitting and stand-
ing at the same instant of time ; but Luke and John
do not speak of the same instant, nor of the same ap-
pearance. Luke speaks of the appearance to all the
women, and John of the appearance to Mary Magda-
lene alone, who tarried weeping at the sepulchre after
Peter and John had left it. But I forbear making any
more minute remarks on still minuter objections, all
of which are grounded on this mistake — that the an-
gels were seen at one particular time, in one particu-
lar place, and by the same individuals.

As to your inference, from Matthew's using the ex-
pression unto this day, " that the book must have been
manufactured after the lapse of some generations at
least," it cannot be admitted against the positive tes-
timony of all antiquity. That the story about stealing
away the body was a bungling story, I readily admit ;
but the chief priests are answerable for it : it is not
worthy either your notice or mine, except as it is a
strong instance to you, to me, and to every body, how
far prejudices may mislead the understanding.

112 Watson's [3£Ml

You come to that part of the evidence in those
books that respects, you say, " the pretended appear-
ance of Christ after his pretended resurrection." The
writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel
that was sitting on the stone at the mouth of the se-
pulchre, said to the two Marys, (ch. 28: 7,) "Behold,
Christ is gone before you into Galilee, there shall you
see him." The Gospel, sir, was preached to poor and
illiterate men, and it is the duty of priests to preach it
to them in all its purity ; to guard them against the er-
ror of mistaken, or the designs of wicked men, You,
then, w^ho can read your Bible, turn to this passage,
and you will find that the angel did not say, " Behold,
Christ is gone before you into Galilee ;" but, " Be-
hold, he goeth before you into Galilee." I know not
what Bible you made use of in this quotation, none
that I have seen render the original word by, he is
gone. It might be properly rendered, he will go : and
it is literally rendered, he is going. This phrase does
not imply an immediate setting out for Galilee. When
a man has fixed upon a long journey to London or
Bath, it is common enough to say, he is going to Lon-
don or Bath, though the time of his going may be at
some distance. Even your dashing Matthew could
not be guilty of such a blunder as to make the an-
gel say, he is gone ; for he tells us immediately af-
terwards, that, as the women were departing from the
sepulchre to tell his disciples what the angels had
said to them, Jesus himself met them. Now, how Je-
sus could be gone into Galilee, and yet meet the wo-
men at Jerusalem, I leave you to explain, for the blun-
der is not chargeable upon Matthew. I excuse your
introducmg the expression, " then the elevon disciples

395 I REPLY TO PAINE. 113

went away into Galilee," for the quotation is rightly
made ; but had you turned to the Greek Testament,
you would not have found in this place any word an-
swering to then: the passage is better translated "and
the eleven. ' Christ had said to his disciples, (Matt.
26: 32,) " After I am risen again, I will go before you
into Galilee ;" and the angel put the women in mind
of the very expression and prediction : he is risen, as
he said ; and behold, he goeth before you into Gali-
lee. Matthew, intent upon the appearance in Galilee,
of which there were, probably, at the time he wrote,
many living witnesses in Judea, omits the mention of
many appearances taken notice of by John, and by
this omission seems to connect the day of the resur-
rection of Jesus with that of the departure of the dis-
ciples for Gaiilee. You seem to think this a great dif-
ficulty, and incapable of solution ; for you say, " It is
not possible, unless we admit these disciples the right
of willful lying, that the writers of these books could
be any of the eleven persons called disciples ; for if,
according to Matthew, the eleven went into Galilee to
meet Jesus in a mountain, by his own appointment, on
the same day that he is said to have risen, Luke and
John must have been two of that eleven ; yet the wri-
ter of Luke says expressly, and John implies as much,
that the meeting was that day in a house at Jerusalem :
and on the other hand, if, according to Luke and John,
the eleven were assembled in a house at Jerusalem,
Matthew must have been one of that eleven ; yet Mat-
thew says the meeting was in a mountain in Galilee,
and consequently the evidence given in those books
destroy each other." When I was a young man in ihe
university. I was pretty much accustomed to drawing

114 u'atson's

of consequences ; but ray Alma Mater did not suffer
me to draw consequences after your manner : she
taught me that a false position must end in an absurd
conclusion. I have shown your position, "that the
eleven went into Galilee on the day of the resurrec-
tion," to be false, and hence your consequence, " that
the evidence given in these two books destroy each
other," is not to be admitted. You ought, moreover,
to have considered that the feast of unleavened bread,
which immediately followed the day on which the
passover was eaten, lasted seven days ; and that strict
observers of the law did not think themseh'es at liber-
ty to leave Jerusalem till that feast was ended ; and
this is a collateral proof that the disciples did not go
to Galilee on the day of the resurrection.

You certainly have read the New Testament, but
not, I think, with great attention, or you would have
known who the apostles were. In this place you
reckon Luke as one of the eleven, and in other places
you speak of him as an eye-witness of the things he
relates. You ought to have known that Luke was no
apostle ; and he tells you himself, in the preface to
his Gospel, that he wrote from the testimony of others.
If this mistake proceeds from your ignorance, you are
not a fit person to write comments on the Bible; if
from design, (which I am unwilling to suspect,) you
are still less fit : in either case it may suggest to your
readers the propriety of suspecting the truth and ac-
curacy of your assertions, however daring and intem-
perate. " Of the numerous priests or parsons of the
present day, bishops and all, the sum total of whose
learning," according to you, "is ah ab, and /m'c, hcBCj
hoc, there is not one amongst them." you say, "who

397] REPLY TO PAINE. 115

can write poetry like Homer, or science like Euclid."
If I should admit this, (though there are many of them,
1 doubt not, who understand these authors better than
you do,) yet I cannot admit that there is one amongst
them, bishops and all, so ignorant as to rank Luke the
evangelist among the apostles of Christ. I will not
press this point ; any man may fall into a mistake, and
the consciousness of this fallibility should create in
all men a little modesty, a little diffidence, a little cau-
tion, before they presume to call the most illustrious
characters of antiquity liars, fools, and knaves.

You want to know why Jesus did not show himself
to all the people after the resurrection. This is one of
Spinoza's objections, and it may sound well enough
in the mouth of a Jew, wishing to excuse the infidelity
of his countrymen : but it is not judiciously adopted
by deists of other nations. God gives us the means
of health, but he does not force us to the use of them ;
he gives us the powers of the mind, but he does not
compel us to the cultivation of them ; he gave the
Jews opportunities of seeing the miracles of Jesus, but
he did not oblige them to believe them. They who
persevered in their incredulity after the resurrection of
Lazarus, would have persevered also after the resur-
rection of Jesus. Lazarus had been buried four days,
Jesus but three 5 the body of Lazarus had begun to un-
dergo corruption, the body of Jesus saw no corruption j
why should you expect that they would have believed
in Jesus on his own resurrection, when they had not
believed in him on the resurrection of Lazarus ? When
the Pharisees were told of the resurrection of Lazarus,
they, together with the chief priests, gathered a coun-
cil and said, '• What do we ? for this man doeth ma.ny

34 Infidelity.

116 WATSON'S [398

miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will be*
lieve on him. Then from that day forth they took coun-
sel together to put him to death." The great men al
Jerusalem, you see, admitted that Jesus had raised La-
zarus from the dead ; yet the belief of that miracle did
not generate conviction that Jesus was the Christ : it
only exasperated their malice and accelerated their
purpose of destroying him. Had Jesus shown himsell
after his resurrection, the chief priests would probably
have gathered together another council, have opened
it with " What do we ?" and ended it with a deter-
mination to put him to death. As to us, the evidence
of the resurrection of Jesus, which we have in the
New Testament, is far more convincing than if it had
been related that he showed himself to every man in
Jerusalem; for then we should have had a suspicion
that the whole story had been fabricated by the Jews.
You think Paul an improper witness of the resur-
rection ; I think him one of the fittest that could have
been chosen ; and for this reason — his testimony is the
testimony of a former enemy. He had, in his own mi-
raculous conversion, sufficient ground for changing his
opinion as to the matter of fact — for believing that to
have been a fact, which he had formerly, through ex-
treme prejudice, considered as a fable. For the trutfc
of the resurrection of Jesus he appeals to above two
hundred and fifty living witnesses ; and before whom
does he make his appeal ? Before his enemies, who
were able and willing to blast his character, if he had
advanced an untruth. You know, undoubtedly, that
Paul had resided at Corinth near tw^o years ; that during
a part of that lime he had testified to the Jews that Jesus
was the Christ j that, finding the bulk of that nation

399] REPLY TO PAINE. 117

obstinate iu their unbelief, he had turned to the Gen-
tiles, and had converted many to the faith in Christ ;
that he left Corinth, and went to preach the Gospel in
other parts ; that, about three years after he had quit-
ted Corinth, he wrote a letter to the converts v/hich
he had made in that place, and who, after his depar-
ture, had been split into different factions, and had
adopted different teachers in opposition to Paul. From
this account we may be certain that Paul's letter, and
every circumstance in it, would be minutely examined.
The city of Corinth was full of Jews ; these men were,
in general, Paul's bitter enemies; yet, in the face of
them all, he asserts " that Jesus Christ was buried ;
that he rose again the third day ; that he was seen of
Cephas, then of the twelve ; that he was afterwards
seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom
the greater pan were t'len alive." An appeal to above
two hundred and fifty living witnesses is a pretty
strong proof of a fact ; but it becomes irresistible when
that appeal is submitted to the judgment of enemies.
St. Paul, you must allow, was a man of ability ; but
he would have been an idiot had he put it in the power
of his enemies to prove, from his own letter, that he
was a lying rascal. They neither proved, nor attempted
to prove any such thing; and therefore we may safe-
ly conclude that this testimony of Paul to the resur-
rection of Jesus was true : and it is a testimony, in my
opinion, of the greatest weight.

You come, you say, to the last scene, the ascension j
upon which, in your opinion, " the reality of the fu-
ture mission of the disciples was to rest for proof" I
do not agree with you in this. The reality of the future
mission of the apostles might have been proved, though

^^^ WATSoN^a r4QQ

Jesus Christ had not visibly ascended into heayen
Miracles are the proper proofs of a divine mission:
and when Jesus gave the apostles a commission to
preach the Gospel, he commanded them to stay at Je-
rusalem till they were endued with power from on
high. Matthew has omitted the mention of the ascen-
sion; and John, you say, has not said a syllable about
It. I thmk otherwise. John has not given an express
account of the ascension, but he has certainly said
somethmg about it; for he informs us that Jesus said
to Mary, " Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended
to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto
them, I ascewd unto my Father and your Father, and to
my God and your God." This is surely saying some-
thmg about the ascension ; and if the fact of the ascen-
sion be not related by John or Matthew, it may rea-
sonably be supposed that the omission was made on
account of the notoriety of the fact. That the fact was
generally known may be justly collected from the re-
ference which Peter makes to it, in the hearing of all
the Jews, a very few days after it had happened, " This
Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Therefore being hy the right hand of God exalted."
Paul bears testimony also to the ascension, when he
says that Jesus was received up into glory. As to
the difference you contend for, between the account of
the ascension as given by Mark and Luke, it does not
exist; except in this, that Mark omits the particulars
of Jesus goin^ with his apostles to Bethany and bless-
ing them there, which are mentioned by Luke. But
omissions, I must often put you in mind, are not con-
tradictions.
You have now, you say, "gone through the exa.

401] REPLY TO PAINE. 119

mination of ihe four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John ; and when it is considered that the
whole space of time, from the crucifixion to what is
called the ascension, is but a few days, apparently not
more than three or four, and that all the circumstances
are reported to have happened near the same spot, Je-
rusalem, it is, I believe, impossible to find, in any story
upon record, so many and such glaring absurdities,
contradictions, and falsehoods, as are in those books.'*
What am I to say to this ? Am I to say that, in writ-
ing this paragraph, you have forfeited your character
as an honest man ? Or, admitting your honesty, am I
to say that you are grossly ignorant of the subject?
Let the reader judge. John says that Jesus appeared
to his disciples at Jerusalem on the day of his resur-
rection, and that Thomas was not then with them.
The same John says, that after eight days he appeared
to them again, when Thomas was with them. Now,
sir, how apparently three or four days can be consist-
ent with really eight days I leave you to make out.
But this is not the whole of John's testimony, either
with respect to place or time; for he says, "After these
things (after the two appearances to the disciples at
Jerusalem on the first and on the eighth day after the
resurrection) Jesus showed himself again to his disci-
ples at the sea of Tiberias." The sea of Tiberias, I
presume you know, was in Galilee ; and Galilee, you
may know, was sixty or seventy miles from Jerusalem:
it must have taken the disciples some lime, after the
eighth day, to travel from Jerusalem into Galilee.
What, in your own insulting language to the priests,
what have you to answer, as to the same spot Jcru-
talenij and as to your apparentlv three or four days?
34*

120 Watson's [402

But this is not all. Luke, in the beginning of the
Acts, refers to his Gospel, and says, " Christ showed
himself alive after his passion, by many infallible
proofs, being seen of the apostles forty days, and
speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom ot
God." Instead o^ four, you perceive there wols forty
days between the crucifixion and the ascension. I
need not, I trust, after this, trouble myself about the
falsehoods and contradictions which you impute to the
evangelists; your readers cannot but be upon their
guard as to the credit due to your assertions, however
bold and improper. You will suffer me to remark, that
the evangelists were plain men ; who, convinced of the
truth of their narration, and conscious of their own in-
tegrity, have related what they knew with admirable
simplicity. They seem to have said to the Jews of
their time, and to say to the unbelievers of all times,
we have told you the truth ; and if you will not believe
us, we have nothing more to say. Had they been im-
postors they would have written with more caution
and art, have obviated every cavil, and avoided every
appearance of contradiction. This they have not done;
and this I consider as a proof of their honesty and
veracity.

John the Baptist had given his testimony to the truth
of our Savior's mission in the most unequivocal terms ;
he afterwards sent two of his disciples to Jesus, to ask
him whether he was really the expected Messiah or
not. Matthew relates 6o^A these circumstances: had
the writer of the book of Matthew been an impostor,
jvould he have invalidated John's testimony, by bring-
ing forward his real or apparent doubt ? Impossible I
B^^tthew, having proved the resurrection of Jesus, tell*

403] REPLY TO PAINE. 121

US that the eleven disciples went away into Galilee
into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them, and
" when they saw him, they worshiped him ; but some
doubted." Would an impostor, in the very last place
where he mentions the resurrection, and in the con-
clusion of his book, have suggested such a cavil to un-
believers, as to say, " some doubted V Impossible ! The
evangelist has left us to collect the reason why some
doubled. The disciples saw Jesus, at a distance, on
the mountain ; and some of them fell down and wor-
shiped him ; whilst others doubted whether the person
they saw was really Jesus : their doubt, however, could
not have lasted long, for in the very next verse we are
told that Jesus came and spake unto them.

Gr«at and laudable pains have been taken by many
learned men to harmonize the several accounts given
us by the evangelists of the resurrection. It does not
6eem to me to be a matter of any great consequence to
Christianity whether the accounts can, in every minute
particular, be harmonized or not ; since there is no such
discordance in them as to render the fact of the resur-
rection doubtful to any impartial mind. If any man,
in a court of justice, should give positive evidence of
a fact, and three others should afterwards be examined,
and all of them should confirm the evidence of the first
as to the fact, but should apparently differ from bini
and from each other, by being more or less particular
in their accounts of the circumstances attending the
fact; ought we to doubt of the fact because we could
not harmonize the evidence respecting the circum-
stances relating to it? The omission of any one cir-
cumstance (such as that of Mary Magdalene having
gone twice to the sepulchre ; or that of the angel hav-

122 Watson's [404

ing, after he had rolled away the stone from the sepul-
chre, entered into the sepulchre) may render a har-
mony impossible, without having recourse to supposi-
tion to supply the defect. You deists laugh at all such
attempts, and call them priestcraft. I think it better
then, in arguing with you, to admit that there may be
(not granting, however, that there is) an irreconcilable
difference between the evangelists in some of their ac-
counts respecting the life of Jesus, or his resurrection.
Be it so; what then? Does this difference, admitting
It to be real, destroy the credibility of the Gospel his-
tory in any of its essential points ? Certainly, in my
opinion, not. As I look upon this to be a general an-
swer to most of yourdeistical objections, 1 profess my
sincerity in saying that I consider it as a true and
sufficient answer; and I leave it to your consideration.
I have purposely, in the whole of this discussion, been
silent as to the inspiration of the evangelists, well
knowing that you would have rejected, with scorn, any
thing I could have said on that point ; but in disputing
with a deist, I do most solemnly contend that the
Christian religion is true, and worthy of all accepta-
tion, whether the evangelists were inspired or not.

Unbelievers in general wish to conceal their senti-
ments ; they have a decent respect for public opinion ;
are cautious of affronting the religion of their country,
fearful of undermining the foundations of civil society.
Some few have been more daring, but less judicious,
and have, without disguise, professed their unbelief.
But you are the first who ever swore that he was
an infidel, concluding your deistical creed with — So
help me God ! I pray that God may help you ; that
be may, through the influence of his Holy Spirlt^

405] REPLY TO PAINE. .23

bring you to a right mind ; convert you to the religion
of his Son, whom, out of his abundant love to man-
kind, he sent into the world, that all who believe m
him should not perish, but have everlasting Jfe.

You swear that you think the Christian religion
is not true. I give full credit to your oath ; it is an
oath in confirmation — of what ? of an opinion. It
proves the sincerity of your declaration of your opi-
nion ; but the opinion, notwithstanding the oath, may
be either true or false. Permit me to produce to you
an oath not confirming an opinion, but a fact ; it is the
oath of St. Paul, when he swears to the Galatians,
that in what he told them of his miraculous conver-
sion he did not lie ; " Now the things which I write
unto you, behold, before God, I lie not" — do but give
that credit to St. Paul which I give to you, do but
consider the difference between an opinion and a fact,
and I shall not despair of your becoming a Chris-
tian.

Deism, you say, consists in a belief of one God,
and an imitation of his moral character, or the prac-
tice of what is called virtue ; and in this (as far as
religion is concerned) you rest all your hopes. There
is nothing in deism but what is in Christianity, but
there is much in Christianity which is not in deism.
The Christian has no doubt concerning a future state ;
every deist, from Plato to Thomas Paine, is on this
subject overwhelmed with doubts insuperable by hu-
man reason. The Christian has no misgivings as to
the pardon of penitent sinners, through the interces-
sion of a mediator ; the deist is harassed with appre-
hensions lest the moral justice of God should demand,
with inexorable rigor, punishment for transgression.

124 Watson's [406

The Christian has no doubt concerning the lawfulness
and the efficacy of prayer ; the deist is disturbed on
this point by abstract considerations concerning the
goodness of God, which wants not to be entreated ;
concerning his foresight, which has no need of our
information ; concerning his immutability, which can-
not be changed through our supplication. The Chris-
tian admits the providence of God and the liberty of
human actions ; the deist is involved in great difficul-
ties when he undertakes the proof of either. The
Christian has assurance that the Spirit of God will
help his infirmities ; the deist does not deny the pos-
sibility that God may have access to the human mind,
but he has no ground to believe the fact of his either
enlightening the understanding, influencing the will,
or purifying the heart.

LETTER IX.

" Those," you say, " who are not much acquainted
with ecclesiastical history, may suppose that the book
called the New Testament has existed ever since the
time of Jesus Christ: but the fact is historically other-
wise ; there was no such book as the Ncav Testament
till more than three hundred years after the time that
Christ is said to have lived." This parag-raph is cal-
culated to mislead common readers ; it is necessary
to unfold its meaning. The book called the New
Testament, consists of twenty-seven different parts :
concerning seven of these, viz. the Epistle lo the
Hebrews, that of James, the second of Peter, the
second of John, the third of John, that of Jude, and
ihe Revelation, there were at first some doubts; and

407] REPLY TO PAINE. 12"5

the question whether they should be received into the
canon might be decided, as all questions concerning
opinions must be, by vote. With respect to the other
twenty parts, those who are most acquainted with
ecclesiastical history will tell you, as Du Pin does aftei
Eusebius, that they were owned as canonical, at all
times, and by all Christians. Whether the council
of Laodicea was held before or after that of Nice, is
not a settled point: all the books of the New Testa-
ment, except the Revelation, are enumerated as cano-
nical in the Constitution of that council; but it is a
great mistake to suppose that the greatest part of the
books of the New Testament were not in general use
amongst the Christians long before the council of
Laodicea was held. This is not merely my opinion
on the subject ; it is the opinion of one much better
acquainted with ecclesiastical history than I am, and
probably than you are — Mosheim. " The opinions,"
says this author, " or rather the conjectures of the
learned, concerning the time when the books of the
New Testament were collected into one volume, as
also about the autiiors of that collection, are extremely
different. This important question is attended with
great and almost insuperable difficulties to us in these
latter times. It is however sufficient for us to know,
that, before the middle of the second century, the
greatest part of the books of the New Testament
were read in every Christian society throughout the
world, and received as a divine rule of faith and man-
ners. Hence it appears that these sacred writings
were carefully separated from several human compo-
sitions upon the same subject, either by some of the
apostles themselves who lived so long, or by their

126 WATSON 's [408

disciples and successors who were spread abroad
through all nations. We are well assured that the
four Gospels were collected during the life of St.
John, and that the three first received the approbation
of this divine apostle. And why may we not sup-
pose that the other books of the New Testament were
gathered together at the same time 1 What renders
this highly probable is, that the most urgent necessity
required its being done. For, not long after Christ's
ascension into heaven, several histories of his life
and doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous won-
ders, were composed by persons whose intentions,
perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings discovered
the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this
all ; productions appeared, which were imposed on the
world by fraudulent men, as the Avritings of the holy
apostles. These apocryphal and spurious writings
must have produced a sad confusion, and rendered
both the history and the doctrine of Christ uncertain,
had not the rulers of the Church used all possible
care and diligence in separating the books that were
truly apostolical and divine from all that spurious
trash, and conveying them down to posterity in one
volume."

Did you ever read the Apology for the Christians
which Justin Martyr presented to the emperor Anto-
ninus Pius, to the senate and people of Rome ? I should
sooner expect a fallacy in a petition which any body
of persecuted men, imploring justice, should present tc
the king and parliament of Great Britain, than in this
Apology. Yet in this Apology, which was presented
not fifty years after the death of St. John, not only
parts of all the four Gospels are quoted, I ut it is ex-

409j REPLY TO PAINE. 127

pressly said, that on the day called Sunday, a portion
of them was read iu the public assemblies of the Chris-
tians. I forbear pursuing this matter further, else it
might easily be shown that probably the Gospels, and
certainly some of St. Paul's epistles, were known to
Clement^ Ignatius, and Polycarp, contemporaries
with the apostles. These men could not quote or refer
to books which did not exist; and therefore, though
you could make it cut that the book called the New
Testament did not formally exist under that title till
350 years after Christ, yet I hold it to be a certain fact
that all the books of which it is composed were writ-
ten, and most of them received by all Christians, within
a few years after his death.

You raise a difficulty relative to the time which in-
tervened between the death and resurrection of Jesus,
who had said, that the Son of man should be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth. Are you ig-
norant, then, that the Jews used the phrase three days
and three nights to denote what we understand by
three days ? It is said in Genesis, chap. 7 : 12, " The
rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights ;"
and this is equivalent to the expression, (ver. 17.)
" And the flood was forty days upon the earth." In-
stead then of saying three days and three nights, let
us simply say three days; and you will not object to
Christ's being three days — Friday, Saturday, and Sun-
day— in the heart of the earth. I do not say that he was
in the grave the whole of either Friday or Sunday ;
but a hundred instances might be produced, from wri-
ters of all nations, in which a part of a day is spoken
of as the whole. Thus much for the defence of the
historical part of the New Testament.

35 Infidelity.

188 vTATsoN'g [410

You have introduced an account of Faiistus, as de-
nying the genuineness of the books of the New Testa-
ment. Will you permit that great scholar in sacred
literature, ?,Hchaelis, to tell you something about this
Faustus ? " He was ignorant, as were most of the Af-
rican writers, of the Greek language, and acquainted
with the New Testament merely through the channel
of the Latin translation : he was not only devoid of a
sufficient fund of learning, but illiterate in the highest
degree. An argument which he brings against the ge-
nuineness of the Gospel affords sufficient ground for
this assertion ; for he contends that the Gospel of St.
Matthew could not have been written by St. Matthew
himself, because he is always mentioned in the third
person." You know who has argued like Faustus, but
I did not think myself authorized on that account to
call you illiterate in the highest degree ; but Michaelis
makes a still more severe conclusion concerning Faus-
tus, and he extends his observation to every man who
argued like him : " A man capable of such an argu-
ment must have been ignorant not only of the Greek
writers, the knowledge of which could not have been
expected from Faustus, but even of the commentaries
of Ca;sar. And were it thought improbable that so
heavy a charge could be laid with justice on the side of
his knovrledge, it would fall w^iih double weight on
the side of his honesty, and induce us to suppose that,
preferring the art of sophistry to the plainness of truth,
he maintained opinions which he believed to be false."
Never more, I think, shall we hear of Moses not be-
ing the author of the Pentateuch, on account of its be-
ing written in the third person.

Pfot being able to produce any argument to rendei

411] REPLY TO PAINE. 129

questionable either the genuineness or the authentici-
ty of St. Paul's Epistles, you tell us that " it is a mat-
ter of no great importance by whom they were written,
since the writer, whoever he was, attempts to prove
his doctrine by argument: he does not pretend to have
been witness to any of the scenes told of the resurrec-
tion and ascension, and he declares that he had not
believed them." That Paul had so far resisted the evi-
dence which the apostles had given of the resurrection
and ascension of Jesus as to be a persecutor of the
disciples of Christ, is certain ; but I do not remember
•,he place where he declares that he had not believed
.-■em. The high priest and the senate of the children
of Israel did not deny the reality of the miracles which
had been wrought by Peter and the apostles ; they did
not contradict their testimony concerning the resur-
rection and the ascension ; but, whether they believed
it or not, they were fired with indignation, and took
counsel to put the apostles to death : and this was also
the temper of Paul : whether he believed or did not be-
lieve the story of the resurrection, he was exceedingly
mad against the saints. The writer of Paul's Epistles
does not attempt to prove his doctrine by argument ;
he in many places tells us that his doctrine was not
taught him by man, or any invention of his own, which
required the ingenuity of argument to prove it: "I
certify you, brethi "in, that the Gospel, which was
preached of me, is n t after man ; for I neither receiv-
ed it of man, neither vas I taught it, but by the reve-
lation of Jesus Christ. Paul does not pretend to have
been a witness of the story of the resurrection, but he
does much more, he asserts that he was himself a
witness of the resurrection. After enumerating many

130 Watson's [412

appearances of Jesus to his disciples, Paul says of him-
self, " Last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one
born out of due time." Whether you will admit Paul
to have been a true witness or not, you cannot deny
that he pretends to have been a witness of the resur-
rection.

The story of his being struck to the ground, as ne
was journeying to Damascus, has nothing in it, you
say, miraculous or extraordinary ; you represent him
as struck by lightning. It is somewhat extraordinary
for a man who is struck by lightning, to have, at the
very time, full possession of his understanding ; to hear
a voice issuing from the lightning, speaking to him in
the Hebrew tongue, calling him by his name, and en-
tering into conversation with him. His companions,
you say, appear not to have suffered in the same man-
ner ; the greater the wonder. If it w^as a common storm
of thunder and lightning which struck Paul and all his
companions to the ground, it is somewhat extraordina-
ry that he alone should be hurt ; and that, notwith-
standing his being struck blind by lightning, he should
in other respects be so little hurt as to be immediate-
ly able to walk into the city of Damascus. So difficult
is it to oppose truth by an hypothesis ! In the charac-
ter of Paul you discover a great deal of violence and
fanaticism ; and such men, you observe, are never good
moral evidences of any doctrine they teach. Read,
sir. Lord Lyttelton's Observations on the Conversion
and Apostleshipof St. Paul, and I think you will be con-
vinced of the contrary. That elegant writer thus ex-
presses his opinion on this subject : " Besides all the
proofs of the Christian religion, which may be drawn
from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from the

413] REPLY TO PAINE. 131

necessary connection it has with the whole system of
the Jewish religion, from the miracles of Christ, and
from the evidence given of his resurrection by all the
other apostles, I think the conversion and apostleship
of St, Paul alone, duly considered, is of itself a demon-
stration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine
revelation." I hope this opinion will have some weight
with you ; it is not the opinion of a lying Bible-prophet,
of a stupid evangelist, or of an a 6 ab priest, but of a
learned layman, whose illustrious rank received splen-
dor from his talents.

You are displeased with St. Paul " for setting out
to prove the resurrection of the same body." You
know, I presume, that the resurrection of the same
body is not, by all, admitted to be a scriptural doc-
trine. " In the New Testament (wherein, I think, are
contained all the articles of the Christian faith,) 1 find
our Savior and the apostles to preach the resurrection
of the dead, and the resurrection from the dead, in
many places ; but I do not remember any place where
the resurrection of the same body is so much as men
tioned." This observation of Mr. Locke I so far adopt,
as to deny that you can produce any place in the writ-
ings of St. Paul, wherein he sets out to prove the re-
surrection of the same body. I do not question the
possibility of the resurrection of the same body, and I
am not ignorant of the manner in Vv^hich some learned
men have explained it; (somewhat after the way of
your vegetative speck in the kernel of a peach ;) but
as you are discrediting St. Paul's doctrine, you ought
to shoAV that what you attempt to discredit is the doc-
trine of the apostle. As a matter of choice, you had
rather have a better body— you will have a better bo-
35*

132 Watson's [414

dy, "your natural body will be raised a spiritual body,
your corruptible will put on incorruption." You are
so much out of humor with your present body, that
you inform us every animal in the creation excels us
in something. Now I had always thought that the
single circumstance of our having hands, and their
having none, gave us an intinite superiority, not only
over insects, fishes, snails, and spiders, (which you re-
present as excelling us in locomotive powers,) but
over all the animals of the creation ; and enabled us^
in the language of Cicero, describing the manifold uti-
lity of our hands, to make as it were a new nature ot
things. As to what you say about the consciousness
of existence being the only conceivable idea of a fu-
ture life, it proves nothing, either for or against the
resurrection of a body, or of the same body ; it does
not inform us whether to any or to what substance,
material or immaterial, this consciousness is annexed.
I leave it however to others, who do not admit per-
sonal identity to consist in consciousness, to dispute
with you on this point, and willingly subscribe to
the opinion of Mr. Locke, "that nothing but con-
sciousness can unite remote existences into the same
person."

From a caterpillar's passing into a torpid state re-
sem.bling death, and afterwards appearing a splendid
butterfly, and from the (supposed) consciousness of
existence which the animal had in these different states,
you ask, " Why must I believe that the resurrection of
the same body is necessary to continue in me the con-
sciousness of existence hereafter ?" I do not dislike ana-
logical reasoning, when applied to proper objects and
kept within due bounds ; but where is it said in Scrip-

415] REPLY TO PAINE. 123

ture, that the resurrection of the same body is neces-
sary to continue in you the consciousness of existence?
Those who admit a conscious state of the soul be-
tween death and the resurrection, will contend that
the soul is the substance in which consciousness is
continued without interruption: those who deny the
intermediate state of the soul as a state of conscious-
ness, will contend that consciousness is not destroyed
by death, but suspended by it, as it is suspended dur-
ing a sound sleep, and that it may as easily be restored
after death as after sleep, during which the faculties
of the soul are not extinct but dormant. Those who
think that the soul is nothing distinct from the com-
pages of the body, not a substance but a mere quality,
will maintain that the consciousness appertaining to
every individual person is not lost when the body is
destroyed ; that it is known to God, and may, at the
general resurrection, be annexed to any system of mat-
ter he may think fit, or to that particular compages to
which it belonged in this life.

In reading your book I have been frequently shocked
at the virulence of your zeal, at the indecorum of your
abuse in applying vulgar and offensive epithets to men
who have been held, and who Avill long, I trust, con-
tinue to be holden in high estimation. I know that
the scar of calumny is seldom wholly effaced, it re-
mains long after the wound is healed; and your abuse
of holy men and holy things will be remembered when
your arguments against them are refuted and forgot-
ten. Moses you term an arrogant coxcomb, a chief
assassin ; Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, David, monsters and
imjjosters ; the Jewish kings a parcel of rascals ; Je-
remiah and the rest of the prophets liars ; and Paul a

134 WATSON 9 [416

fool, for having written one of the subliraest composi-
tions, and on the most important subject that ever oc-
cupied the mind of man — the fifteenth chapter of the
first Epistle to the Corinthians : this you call a doubt-
ful jargon, as destitute of meaning as the tolling of
the bell at a funeral. Men of low condition I pressed
down, as you often are, by calamities generally inci-
dent to human nature, and groaning under burthens of
misery peculiar to your condition, what thought you
when you heard this chapter read at the funeral of
your child, your parent, or your friend ? Was it mere
jargon to you, as destitute of meaning as the tolling
of a bell ? No. You understood from it that you
would not all sleep, but that you would all be changed
in a moment, at the last trump ; you understood from
it that this corruptible must put on incorruption, that
this mortal must put on immortality, and that death
w^ould be swallowed up in victory ; you understood
from it, that if (notwithstanding profane attempts to
subvert your faith) ye continue steadfast, unmovable,
always abounding in the work of the Lord, your labor
will not be in vain.

You seem fond of displaying your skill in science
and philosophy ; you speak more than once of Euclid;
and, in censuring St. Paul, you intimate to us, that
when the apostle says, one star differeth from another
star in glory, he ought to have said in distance. All
men see that one star differeth from another star in glory
or brightness, but few men know that their difference
in brightness arises from their difference in distance ;
and I beg leave to say, that even you, philosopher as
you are, do not know it. You make an assumption
which you cannot prove — that the stars are equal ia

4i7j REPLY TO PAINE. 135

magnitude, and placed at different distances from the
earth ; but you cannot prove that they are not different
in magnitude and placed at equal distances, though
none of them may be so near to the earth as to have
any sensible annual 'parallax. I beg pardon of my
readers for touching upon this subject; but it really
moves one's indignation to see a smattering in philo-
sophy urged as an argument against the veracity of an
apostle. " Little learning is a dangerous thing."

Paul, you say, affects to be a naturalist, and to prove
(you might more properly have said illustrate) his
system of resurrection from the principles of vegeta-
tion: " Thou fool," says he, "that which thou sowest
is not quickened, except it die ;" to which one might
reply in his own language, and say, " Thou fool, Paul,
that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die
not.''' It may be seen, I think, from this passage, who
affects to be a naturalist, to be acquainted v;ith the
microscopical discoveries of modern times ; which
were probably neither known to Paul nor to the Co-
rinthians ; and which, had they been known to them
both, would have been of little use in the illustration
of the subject of the resurrection. Paul said, "that
which thou sowest is not quickened except it die :"
every husbandman in Corinth, though unable perhaps
to define the term death, would understand the apos-
tle's phrase in a papular sense, and agree with him
that a grain of wheat must become rotten in the
ground before it could sprout ; and that, as God raised,
from a rotten grain of wneat, the roots, the stem, the
leaves, the ear of a new plant, he might also cause a
new body to spring up from the rotten carcass in the
grave. Doctor Clarke observes, " In like manner, as

136 watson'9 ' 418

in every grain of corn there is contained a minute in-
sensible seminal principle, which is itself the entire
future blade and ear, and in due season, when all the
rest of the grain is corrupted, evolves and unfolds
itself visibly to the eye ; so our present mortal and
corruptible body may be but the exuvice, as it were, of
some hidden and at present insensible principle, (possi-
bly the present seat of the soul,) which at the resur-
rection shall discover itself in its proper form." 1 do
not agree with this great man (for such I esteem him)
in this philosophical conjecture ; but the quotation
may serve to show you that the germ does not evolve
and unfold itself visibly to the eye till after the rest
of the grain is corrupted; that is, in the language
and meaning of St. Paul, till it dies. Though the
authority of Jesus may have as little weight with you
as that of Paul, yet it may not be improper to quote
to you our Savior's expression, when he foretells the
numerous disciples which his death would produce:
" Except a corn of wheat fall unto the ground and
die, it abideth alone ; but if it die, it bringeth forth
much fruit." You perceive from this, that the Jews
thought the death of the grain was necessary to its re-
production : hence every one may see what little reason
you had to object to the apostle's popular illustration
of the possibility of a resurrection. Had he known
as much as any naturalist in Europe does, of the pro-
gress of an animal from one state to another, as from
a worm to a butterfly, (which you thmk applies to the
case,) I am of opinion he would not have used that
illustration in preference to what he has used, which is
obvious and satisfactory.

Whether the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul were

419] REPLY TO PAINE. 137

tvritten by him or not, is, in your judgment, a matter
of indifference. So far from being a matter of in-
difference, I consider the genuineness of St. Paul's
epistles to be a matter of the greatest importance ; for
if the epistles ascribed to Paul were written by him,
(and there is unquestionable proof that they were,) it
will be difficult for you, or for any man, upon fair
principles of sound reasoning, to deny that the Chris-
tian religion is true. The argument is a short one,
and obvious to every capacity. It stands thus:
St. Paul wrote several letters to those whom, in
different countries, he had converted to the Chris-
tian faith ; in these letters he affirms two things ; first,
that he had wrought miracles in their presence ;
secondly, that many of themselves had received the
gift of tongues, and other miraculous gifts of the
Holy Ghost. The persons to whom these letters
were addressed must, on reading them, have certainly
known whether Paul affirmed what was true, or told
a plain lie ; they must have known whether they had
seen him work miracles ; they must have been con-
€cious whether they themselves did or did not pos-
sess any miraculous gifts. Now, can you, or can anv
man, believe for a moment that Paul (a man certainly
of great abilities) would have written public letters
full of lies, and which could not fail of being dis-
covered to be lies as soon as his letters were read ?
Paul could not be guilty of falsehood in these two
points, or in either of them ; and if either of them
be true, the Christian religion is true. References to
these two points are frequent in St. Paul's epistles :
I will mention only a few. In his epistle to the Ga-
latians he says, (chap. 4 : 2, 5,) " This only would I

138 WATSoN^s [420

learn of you, received ye the Spirit (gifts of the
Spirit) by the works of the law? He ministereth to
you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you." To
the Thessalonians he says, (1 Thess. ch. 1 : 5,) "Our
Gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in
power, and in the Holv Ghost." To the Corinthians
he thus expressed himself, (Cor. 2 : 4,) " My preach-
ing was not with enticing words of man's wisdom,
but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power j*'
and he adds the reason for his working miracles,
" That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men, but in the power of God." With what alacrity
would the faction at Corinth, which opposed the apos-
tle, have laid hold of this and many similar declara-
tions in his letter, had they been able to have detected
any falsehood in them ? There is no need to multi-
ply words on so clear a point : the genuineness of
Paul's epistles proves their authenticity, independently
of every other proof; for it is absurd in the extreme
to suppose him, under circumstances of obvious de-
tection, capable of advancing what was not true ;
and if Paul's epistles be both genuine and authen-
tic, the Christian religion is true. Think of this argu-
ment.

You close your observations in the following man-
ner: ''Should the Bible (meaning, as I have before
remarked, the Old Testament) and Testament here-
after fall, it is not I that have been the occasion."
You look, I think, upon your production with a pa-
rent's partial eye when you speak of it in such a
style of self-complacency. The Bible, sir, has with-
stood the learning of Porphyry and the power of
Julian^ to say nothing of the Manichean Faustus ; it

421] REPLY TO PAIME. 139

has resisted the genius of Bolincfbroke and the wit
of Voltaire, to say nothing of the numerous herd
of inferior assailants ; and it will not fall by your
force. You have barbed anew the blunted arrows of
former adversaries ; you have feathered them with
blasphemy and ridicule; dipped them in your dead-
liest poison ; aimed them with your utmost skill ; shot
them against the shield of faith with your utmost
vigor; but, like the feeble javelin of aged Priam,
they will scarcely reach the mark, and will fall to the
ground without a stroke.

LETTER X.

The remaining part of your work can hardly be
made the subject of animadversion. It principally
consists of unsupported assertions, abusive appella-
tions, illiberal sarcasms, " strifes of words, profane
babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called."
I am hurt at being, in mere justice to the subject, un-
der the necessity of using such harsh language ; and
am sincerely sorry that, from what cause I know not,
your mind has received a wrong bias in every point
respecting revealed religion. You are capable of bet-
ter things ; for there is a philosophical sublimity in
some of your ideas, when you speak of the Supreme
Being as the Creator of the universe. That you may
not accuse me of disrespect, in passing over any part
of your work without bestowing proper attention upon
It, I will wait upon you through wliat you call your
conclusion.

You refer your reader to the former part of the Age
of Reason ; in which you have spoken of what you

3(3 Infidelity.

140 Watson's [422

esteem three frauds : mystery, miracle, and prophecy.
I have not at hand the book to which you refer, and
know not what you have said on these subjects. They
are subjects of great importance, and we, probably,
should differ essentially in our opinion concerning
them ; but, I confess, I am not sorry to be excused from
examining what you have said on these points. Tho
specimen of your reasoning which is noAV before me,
has taken from me every inclination to trouble either
my reader or myself with any observations on your
former book.

You admit the possibility of God's revealing his
will to man ; yet '* the thing so revealed," you say " is
.evelation to the person only to whom it is made ; his
account of it to another is not revelation." This is
true ; his account is simple testimony. You add, there
IS no " possible criterion to judge of the truth of what
he says." This I positively deny ; and contend that
a real miracle, performed in attestation of a revealed
truth, is a certain criterion by which we may judge of
the truth of that attestation. I am perfectly aware of
the objections which may be made to this position ; 1
have examined them with care ; I acknowledge them
to be of weight; but I do not speak unadvisedly, or as
wishing to dictate to other men, when I say that I am
persuaded the position is true. So thought Moses,
when in the matter of Korah he said to the Israelites,
" If these men die the common death of all men, then
the Lord hath not sent me." So thought Elijah, when
he said, " Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel,
let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel^
and that I am thy servant:" — and the people before
whom he spake were of the same opinion ; for, when

423"! REPLY TO PAINE- Ul

the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt-sa-
cnfice, they said, " The Lord he is the God." So
thought our Savior, when he said, "The works that I do
in my Father's name they bear witness of me ;" and,
" if 1 do not the works of my Father, believe me not."
What reason have we to believe Jesus speaking in
the Gospel, and to disbelieve Mahomet speaking in
the Koran ? Both of them lay claim to a Divine com-
mission ; and yet we receive the words of the one as
a revelation from God, and we reject the words of the
other as an imposture of man. The reason is evident:
Jesus established his pretensions, not by alleging any
secret communication with the Deity, but by working
numerous and indubitable miracles in the presence of
thousands, and which the most bitter and watchful of
his enemies could not disallow ; but Mahomet wrought
no miracles at all : nor is a miracle the only criterion
by which we may judge the truth of a revelation. If
a scries of prophets should, through a course of many
centuries, predict the appearance of a certain person
whom God would at a particular time send into the
world for a particular end, and at length a person
should appear in whom all the predictions were mi-
nutely accomplished ; such a completion of prophecy
would be a criterion of the truth of that revelation
which that person should deliver to mankind. Or if
a person should now say (as many false prophets have
said, and are daily saying) that he had a commission
to declare the will of God ; and, as a proof of his ve-
racity, should predict that, after his death, he would
rise from the dead on the third day ; the completion
of such a prophecy would, I presume, be a sufficient
criterion of the truth of what this man might have said

^^ Watson's i 4j||

concerning the will of God. "Now I tell you (says
Jesus to his disciples, concerning Judas, who was to
betray him) before it come, that when it is come to
pass ye may believe that I am he."

In various parts of the Gospels our Savior, with the
utmost propriety, claims to be received as the messen-
ger of God, not only from the miracles which h"
wrought, but from the prophecies which were fulfilled
m his person, and from the predictions which he hirn-
seh delivered. Hence, instead of there beino- no cri-
terion by which we may judge of the truth of the
Christian revelation, there are clearly three. It is an
easy matter to use an indecorous flippancy of lan^^ua^e
m speaking of the Christian religion, and with a su-
percihous negligence, to class Christ and his apostles
among the impostors who have figured in the world;
but it is not, I think, an easy matter for any man, of
good sense and sound erudition, to make an impartial
examination into any one of the three grounds of
Christianity which I have here mentioned, and to
reject it.

What is it, you ask, the Bible teaches? The pro-
phet Micah shall answer you : it teaches us " to do
justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our
God ;" justice, mercy, and piety, instead of what you
contend for,— rapine, cruelty, and murder. What i?
it, you demand, the Testament teaches us ? You aa^
swer your question— to believe that the Almighty com •
mittcd debauchery with a woman. Absurd and im
pious assertion! No, sir, no; this profane doctrine
this miserable stuflT, this blasphemous perversion of
Scripture, is your doctrine, not that of the New Tes-
tament. I will fell you the lesson which it teaches to

425] REPLY TO PAINE. 143

infidels as. well as to believers ; it is a lesson which
philosophy never taught, which wit cannot ridicule,
nor sophistry disprove ; the lesson is this : " The dead
shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that
hear shall live : all that are in their graves shall come
forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrection
of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the resur-
rection of damnation."

The moral precepts of the Gospel are so well fitted
to promote the happiness of mankind in this world,
and to prepare human nature for the future enjoyment
of that blessedness, of Avhich, in our present state, we
can form no conception, that I had no expectation they
would have met with your disapprobation. You say,
however, " As to the scraps of morality that are irre-
gularly and thinly scattered in those books, they make
no part of the pretended thing, revealed religion."
" Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them." Is this a scrap of morality ? Is
it not rather the concentred essence of all ethics, the
vigorous root from which every branch of moral duty
towards each other may be derived? Duties, you
know, are distinguished by moralists into duties of
perfect and imperfect obligation: does the Bible teach
you nothing, when it instructs you that this distinc-
tion is done away ? when it bids you " put on bowels
of mercy, idndness, humbleness of mind, meekness,
long-suffering, forbearing one another and forgiving
one another, if any man have a quarrel against any."
Those, and precepts such as these, you will in vain
look for in the codes of Frederick or Jiisiinian ; you
cannot fina them in your statute-books ; they were not
taught, nor are they taught, in the schools of heathen
36*

1^4 Watson's [426

philosophy ; or, if some one or two of them should
chance to be glanced at by a Plato, a Seneca, or a Ci-
cero, they are not bound upon the consciences of man-
kind by any sanction. It is in the Gospel, and in the
Gospel alone, that we learn their importance : acts of
benevolence and brotherly love may be to an unbe-
liever voluntary acts— to a Christian they are indis-
pensable duties. Is a new commandment no part of
revealed religion ? " A new commandment I give unto
you, that ye love one another:" the law of Christian
benevolence is enjoined us by Christ himself, in the
most solemn manner, as the distinguishing badge of
our being his disciples.

Two precepts you particularize as inconsistent with
the dignity and the nature of man— that of not resent-
ing injuries, and that of loving enemies. Who but
yourself ever interpreted literally the proverbial phrase ;
" If a man smite thee on thy ricrht cheek, turn to him'
the other also?" Did Jesus himself turn the other
cheek when the officer of the high priest smote him ?
It IS evident that a patient acquiescence under slight
personal injuries is here enjoined; and that a prone-
-ness to revenge, which instigates men to savage acts
of brutality for every trifling offence, is forbidden. As
to loving enemies, it is explained in another place, to
mean, the doing them all the good in our power; "if
thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give'him
drmk ;" and what think you is more likely to preserve
peace, and to promote kind affections amongst men,
than the returning good for evil ? Christianity does
not order us to love in proportion to the injury ; " it
does not offer a premium for a crime ;" it orders us to
let our benevolence extend alike to all, that we may

427] REPLY TO PAINE. 145

emulate the benignity of God himself, who maketh
"his sun to rise on the evil and on the good."

Aristotle, in his treatise of morals, says that some
thought retaliation of personal wrongs an equitable
proceeding ; RhadamaiUhics is said to have given it
his sanctFon; the decemviral laws allowed it; the
common law of England did not forbid it, and it is
said to be still the law of some countries, even in
Christendom : but the mild spirit of Christianity ab-
solutely prohibits, not only the retaliation of injuries,
but the indulgence of every resentful propensity.

" It has been," you affirm, " the scheme of the Chris-
tian church to hold man in ignorance of the Creator,
as it is of government to hold him in ignorance of his
rio-hts." I appeal to the plain sense of any honest man
10° judge whether this representation be true. When
he alte'nds the services of the church, does he discover
any design in the minister to keep him in ignorance of
his Creator? Are not the public prayers in which he
joins, and the sermons whioh are preached, all calcu-
lated' to impress upon his mind a strong conviction of
the mercy, justice, holiness, power, and wisdom of the
one adorable God, blessed for ever? By these means
which the Christian church has provided for our in-
struction, I will venture to say that the most unlearned
congregation of Christians have more just and sublir/io
conceptions of the Creator, a more perfect knowledge
of their duty towards him, and a stronger inducement
to the practice of virtue, holiness, and temperance, thrm
all the philosophers of ail the heathen countries iri thP
world ever had, or now have. If, indeed, your sr \ePie
should take place, and men should no longer believe
their Bible then would they soon become as ignorant

1^ Watson's r428

of the Creator as all the world was when God called
Abraham from his kindred, and as all the world,
which has had no communication with either Jews or
Christians, now is. Then would they soon bow doAvn
to Slocks and stones, kiss their hand (as they did in the
time of Job, and as the poor African does now) to the
moon walking in brightness, and deny the God that
is above; then would they worship Jupiter, Bacchus
and Venus, and emulate, in the transcendent ilagi-
tiousness of their lives, the impure morals of their gods.
You are animated with proper sentiments of piety,
when you speak of the structure of the universe. No
one, indeed, who considers it with attention, can fail
of having his mind filled with the supremest venera-
tion for its Author. Who can contemplate, without as-
tonishment, the motion of a comet, running far beyond
the orb of Saturn, endeavoring to escape into the path-
less regions of unbounded space, yet feeling, at its
utmost distance, the attractive influence of the sun ;
hearing, as it were, the voice of God arresting its pro-
gress, and compelling it, after a lapse of ages, toreite-
rate its ancient course ? Vv'ho can comprehend the dis-
tance of the stars from the earth, and from each other?
It is so great, that it mocks our conception ; our very-
imagination is terrified, confounded, and lost, when
we are told that a ray of light, which moves at the
rate of ten millions of miles in a minute, will not,
though emitted at this instant from the brightest star
reach the earth in less than six years. We think this
earth a great globe, and we see the sad wickedness
which individuals are often guilty of, in scraping to-
gether a little of its dirt; we view, with still greatei
i^taTiishraeQt and horror, the mighty ruin which has.

429] REPLY TO PAINE. 147

m all ages, been brought upon human kind ly the
low ambition of contending powers, to acquire a tem-
porary possession of a little portion of its surface. But
how does the whole of this globe sink, as it were, to
nothing, when we consider that a million of earths
will scarcely equal the bulk of the sun ; that all the
stars are suns ; and that millions of suns constitute,
probably, but a minute portion of that material Avorld
which God hath distributed through the immensity of
space ! Systems, however, of insensible matter, though
arranged in exquisite order, prove only the wisdom
and the power of the great Architect of nature. As
percipient beings, we look for something more — for his
goodness ; and we cannot open our eyes without see-
ing it.

Every portion of the earth, sea, and air, is full of
sensitive beings, capable, in their respective orders, of
enjoying the good things which God has prepared for
their comfort. All the orders of beings are enabled to
propagate their kind ; and thus provision is made for a
successive continuation of happiness. Individuals yield
to the law of dissolution inseparable from the material
structure of their bodies ; but no gap is thereby left in
existence ; their place is occupied by other individuals
capable of participating in the goodness of the Al-
mighty. Contemplations such as these fill the mind
with humility, benevolence, and piety. But why should
we stop here? why not contemplate the goodness of
God in the redemption as well as in the creation of
the world ? By the death of his only begotten Son
Jesus Christ he has redeemed us from the eternal
death which the transgression of Adam had entailed
on all his posterity. You believe nothing about the

1^ WATSON 'a [430

transgression of Adam. The history of Eve and the
serpent excites your contempt; you will not admit
that it is either a real history or an allegorical repre-
sentation of death entering into the world through dis-
obedience to the command of God. Be it so. You find,
however, that death reigns over all mankind, by what-
ever means it was introduced : this is not a matter of
belief, but of lamentable knowledge. The New Tes-
tament tells U3 that, through the merciful dispensation
of God, Chrisr has overcome death, and restored man
to that immortality which Adam had lost. This also
you refuse to believe. Why ? Because you cannot ac-
count for the propriety of this redemption. Miserable
reason! stupid objection! What is there that you can
account for ? Not for the germination of a blade of
grass, not for the fall of a leaf of the forest ; and Avill
you refuse to eat of the fruits of the earth, because
God has not given you wisdom equal to his own ? Will
you refuse to lay hold on immortality, because he has
not given you, because he, probably, could not give to
such a being as man a full manifestation of the end
for which he designs him, nor of the means requisite
for the attainment of that end ? What father of a fa-
mily can make level to the apprehension of his infant
children all the views of happiness which his pater-
nal goodness is preparing for them? Hov/ can he ex-
plain to them the utility of reproof, correction, instruc
tion, example, of all the various means by which he
forms their minds to piety, temperance, and probity?
We are children in the hand of God ; we are in the
very infancy of our existence, just separated from the
womb of eternal duration; it may not be possible for
the Father of the universe to explain to us (infants in

431] REPLY TO PAl.^B. 149

apprehension) the goodness and the wisdom of his
dealings with the sons of men. What qualities of
mind will he necessary for our well-doing through all
eternity, we know not ; what discipline in this infancy
of existence may be necessary for generating these
qualities, we know not ; whether God could or could
not, consistently with the general good, have forgiven
the transgression of Adam without any atonement, we
n.now not; whether the malignity of sin be not so
great, so opposite to the general good, that it cannot
be forgiven whilst it exists, that is, whilst the mind
retains a propensity to it, wo know not ; so that if there
should be much greater difficulty in comprehending
the mode of God's moral government of mankind than
there really is, there would be no reason for doubting
of its rectitude. If the whole human race be considered
as but one small member of a large community of free
and intelligent beings of different orders, and if this
whole community be subject to discipline and laws
productive of the greatest possible good to the whole
system, then may we still more reasonably suspect
our capacity to comprehend the wisdom and goodness
of all God's proceedings in the moral government of
the universe.

You are lavish in your praise of deism. It is so much
belter than atheism, that I mean not to say any thing
to its discredit ; it is not, however, without its diffi-
culties. What think you of an uncaused cause of
every thing ? of a Being who has no relation to time,
not being older to-day than he was yesterday, nor
younger to-day than he will be to-morrow ? who has
no relation to space, not being a part here, and a part
there, or a whole any where ? What think vou of an

150 Watson's [432

omniscient Being who cannot know the future ac-
tions of a man? Or, if his omniscience enables him
to know them, what think you of the contingency of
human actions ? And if human actions are not contin-
gent, what think you of the morality of actions, of the
distinction between vice and virtue, crime and inno-
cence, sin and duty? What think you of the infinite
goodness of a Being who existed through eternity
without any emanation of his goodness manifested in
the creation of sensitive beings? Or, if you contend
that there has been an eternal creation, what think
you of an effect coeval with its cause, of matter not
posterior to its Maker ? What think you of the exis-
tence of evil, moral and natural, in the work of an in-
finite Being, powerful, wise, and good ? What think
you of the gift of freedom of will, when the abuse of
freedom becomes the cause of general misery ? I could
propose to your consideration a great many other ques-
tions of a similar tendency, the contemplation of which
has driven not a few from deism to a^h^-ism, just as
the difficulties in revealed religion have driven your-
self, and some others, from Christianity to deism.

For my own part, I can see no reason why euher re-
vealed or natural religion should be abandoned on ac-
count of the difficulties which attend either of them.
I look up to the incomprehensible Maker of heaven
and earth with unspeakable admiration and self-anni-
hilation. I contemplate, with the utmost gratitude and
Humility of mind, his unsearchable wisdom and good-
ness in the redemption of the world from eternal death,
through the intervention of his Son Jesus Christ; and
I have no doubt of a future state. You and other
men may conclude differently. From the inert nature

433] REPLY TO PAINE. 151

of matter, from the faculties of the human mind, from
the apparent imperfection of God's moral government
of the world, from many modes of analogical reason-
ing, and from other sources, some of the philosophers
of antiquity did collect, and modern philosophers may,
perhaps, collect a strong probability of a future exist-
ence ; and not only of a future existence, but (which
is quite a distinct question) of a future state of retri-
bution proportioned to our moral conduct in this world.
Far be it from me to loosen any of the obligations to
virtue ; but I must confess that I cannot, from the
same sources of argumentation, derive any positive
assurance on the subject. Think then with what
thankfulness of heart I receive the word of God,
which tells me, that though " in Adam (by the con-
dition of our nature) all die," yet " in Christ (by the co-
venant of grace) shall all be made alive." I lay hold
on "eternal life as the gift of God, through Jesus
Christ;" I consider it not as any appendage to the
nature I derive from Adam, but as the free gift of the
Almighty, through his Son, whom he hath constituted
Lord of all, the Savior, the Advocate, and the Judge
of human kind.

''Deism," you affirm, "teaches us, without the pos-
sibility of being mistaken, all that is necessary or pro-
per to be known." There are three things which all
reasonable men admit are necessary and proper to be
known ; the being of God ; the providence of God ;
a future state of retribution. Whether these three
truths are so taught us by deism that there is n^o pos-
sibility of being mistaken concerning any of them, let
the history of philosophy, and of idolatry, and super-
stition, in all ages and countries, detcrmiue. A volume

37 lafidelity.

152 WATSON^S [43*

might be filled with an account of the mistakes into
which the greatest reasoners have fallen, and of the
uncertainty in which they lived, with respect to every
one of these points. I will advert, briefly, only to the
last of them. Notwithstanding the illustrious labors
of Gassendi, Cudworth, Clarke, Baxter, and of above
two hundred other modern writers on the subject, the
natural mortality or immortality of the hm.ian soul is
as little understood by us as it was by the philoso-
phers of Greece or Rome. The opposite opinions of
Plato and of Epicurus, on this subject, have their se-
veral supporters amongst the learned of the present
age in Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, in every
enlightened part of the world ; and they, who have
been most seriously occupied in the study of the ques-
tion concerning a future state, as deducible from the
nature of the human soul, are least disposed to give,
from reason, a positive decision of it either way. The
importance of revelation is by nothing rendered more
apparent than by the discordant sentiments of learned
and good men (for I speak not of the ignorant and im-
moral) on this point. They show the insufficiency of
human reason, in a course of above two thousand
years, to unfold the mysteries of human nature, and
to furnish, from the contemplation of it, any assurance
of the quality of our future condition. If you should
ever become persuaded of this insufficiency, (and yoa
can scarce fail of becoming so, if you examine the
matter deeply,) you will, if you act rationally, be dis-
posed to investigate, with seriousness and impartiality,
the truth of Christianity. You will say of the Gospel,
as the Northumbrian heathens said to Paulinus, by
whom they were converted to the Christian religion,

♦35] REPLY TO PAINE. 153

" The more we reflect on the nature of our soul, the
less we know of it. Whilst it animates our body, we
may know some of its properties ; but when once se-
parated, we know not whither it goes, or from whence
it came. Since, then, the Gospel pretends to give us
filearer notions of these matters, we ought to hear it,
and, laying aside all passion and prejudice, follow that
which shall appear most comformable to right reason."
What a blessing is it to beings, with such limited
capacities as ours confessedly are, to have God himselt
for our instructor in every thing which it much con-
cerns us v6 Iii^ow ! We are principally concerned in
knowing, not the origin of arts, or the recondite depths
of science ; not the history of mighty empires deso-
lating the globe by their contentions ; not the subtili-
ties of logic, the mysteries of metaphysics, the sub-
limities of poetry, or the niceties of criticism. These,
and subjects such as these, properly occupy the learned
leisure of a few: but the bulk of human kind have
ever been, and must ever remain, ignorant of them all ;
they must, of necessity, remain in the same state with
that which a German emperor voluntarily put himself
into, when he made a resolution, bordering on barba-
rism, that he would never read a printed book. We are
all, of every rank and condition, equally concerned in
knowing what will become of us after death ; and, if
we are to live again, we are interested in knowing
whether it be possible for us to do any thing whilst we
live here which may render that future life a happy
one. Now, "that thing called Christianity," as you
scoffingly speak ; that last best gift of Almighty God,
as I esteem it, the Gospel ot Jesus Christ, has given
us the most clear and satisfactory information on both

154 Watson's [436

these points. It tells us, what deism never could have
told us, that we shall certainly be raised from the dead;
that, whatever be the nature of the soul, we shall cer-
tamly live for ever ; ami that, whilst we live here, it is
possible for us to do much towards the rendering that
everlasting life a happy one. These are tremendous
truths to bad men ; they cannot be received and re-
flected on with indiflference by the best ; and they sug-
gest to all such a cogent motive to virtuous action, as
deism could not furnish even to Brutus himself.

Some men have been warped to infidelity by vicious-
ness of life ; and some may have hypocritically pro-
fessed Christianity from prospects of temporal advan-
tage ; but, being a stranger to your character, I neither
impute the former to you, nor can admit the latter as
operating on myself. The generality of unbelievers
are such, from want of information on the subject of
religion; having been engaged from their youth in
struggling for worldly distinction, or perplexed with
the incessant intricacies of business, or beAvildered in
the pursuits of pleasure, they have neither ability, in-
clination, nor leisure, to enter into critical disquisitions
concerning the truth of Christianity. Men of this de-
scription are soon startled by objections which they are
not competent to answer ; and the loose morality of
the age (so opposite to Christian perfection) co-ope-
rating with their want of scriptural knowledge, they
presently get rid of their nursery faith, and are seldom
sedulous in the acquisition of another, founded, not ou
authority, but sober investigation. The Gospel has
been offered to their acceptance; and, from whatever
cause they reject it, I cannot but esteem their situation
10 be dangerous- Under the influence of that persua-

i

4371 BEPLY TO PAlNBs. 155

sion I have been induced to write this book. I do not
expect to derive from it either fame or profit ; these
are not improper incentives to honorable activity, but
there is a time of life when they cease to direct the
judgment of thinking men. What I have written will
not, I fear, make any impression on you ; but I indulge
a hope that it may not be without its effect on some of
your readers. Infidelity is a rank weed ; it threatens to
overspread the land ; its root is principally fixed
amongst the great and opulent, but you are endeavoring
to extend the malignity of its poison through all the
classes of the community. For all I have the greatest
respect, and am anxious to preserve them from the
contamination of your irreligion. I know that many
of the mercantile and laboring classes are given to
reading, and desirous of information on all subjects.
If this little book should chance to fall into their hands
after they have read yours, and they should think that
any of your objections to the authority of the Bible
have not been fully answered, I entreat them to attri
bute the omission to the brevity which I have studied j
to my desire of avoiding learned disquisitions ; to my
inadvertency ; to ray inability ; to any thing rather than
to an impossibility of completely obviating every diffi-
culty you have brought forward. I address the same
request to such of the youth of both sexes as may un
happily have imbibed, from your writings, the poison
of infidelity ; beseeching them to believe that all their
religious doubts may be removed, though it may not
have been in my power to answer, to their satisfaction,
all your objections. I pray God that the rising genera-
lion of this land may be preserved from that " evil
heart of unbelief " which has brought ruin on a nf'jjgh-

156 UATSON S REPLY TO PAINE, [438

boring nation ; that neither a neglected education, nor
domestic irreligion, nor evil communication, nor the
fashion of a licentious world, may ever induce them to
forget that religion alone ought to be their rule of life.

In the conclusion of my Apology for Christianity, I
informed Mr. Gibbon of my extreme aversion to public
controversy. I am now twenty years older than I was
then, and I perceive that this my aversion has increased
with my age. I have, through life, abandoned my lit-
tle literary productions to their fate ; such of them as
have been attacked, have never received any defence
from me ; nor will this receive any, if it should meet
with your public notice, or with that of any other man.

Sincerely wishing that you may become a partaker
of that faith in revealed religion which is the founda-
tion of my happiness in this world, and of all my
hopes in another, I bid vou farewell.

R. LANDAFF.

Calgarih Park, Jan, 20, 1796.

THEENU.

The plausible and sophistical argument of Hume,
in his Essay on Miracles, in which he contends that
" a miracle, however attested, can never be rendered
credible," since " it is contrary to experience that a
miracle should be true, but not contrary to experience
that testimony should be false," has been ably an^
swered by Drs. Campbell, Adam, Hey, Price, Doug-
lass, Paley, Whately, Dwight, Alexander, Professor
Vince, and others. The following brief notices seem
all that It IS necessary to insert in this volume.

" Independent," says Douglass in his ' Errors re^
garding Religion,' " of the reductio ad absurdum
which Hume's own philosophy affords against his
favorite argument, and which is undermined by the
very system from which it springs, it may be observed
that it contains within itself a complication of blun-
ders, more numerous, perhaps, than ever were crowded
into the same brief space. The argument of Hume
against mirp.cles is as follows : A miracle is a viola-
tion of the laws of nature, but we learn from expe-
rience that the laws of nature are never violated.
Our only accounts of miracles depend upon testimony,
and our belief in testimony itself depends upon
experience. But experience shows that testimony ia

2 RDMe's denial of MIR1.CLE& [440

sometimes true and sometimes false ; therefore, we
Ivave only a variable experience in favor of testimony.
But we have a uniform experience in favor of the
uninterrupted course of nature. Therefore, as on the
side of miracles there is but a variable experience,
Qud on the side of no miracles a uniform experience,
it is clear that the lower degree of evidence must
yield to the higher degree, and therefore no testimony
can prove a miracle to be true.

" Every one who has attacked this sophistry has
pointed out a new flaw in it, and they are scarcely yet
exhausted. Paley showed that it was necessary to
demonstrate that there was no God, previously to de
monstrating that there could be no miracles. Camp-
bell showed that so far from belief in testimony being
founded on experience alone, it was diffidence in tes-
timony that we acquire by experience. Others have
pointed out the sophism m the double use of the
word experience, and the confusing of the experience
of a particular individual with the universal experi-
ence of mankind ; for to assert that miracles are
contrary to experience in the last sense, is most piti-
fully to beg the question. Others have observed upon
the complete misapprehension of the argument o{
Tillotson, and upon the sophism in the use of the
word " contrary," for as it is a begging of the ques-
tion to say that miracles are contrary to the experience
of mankind, so it is a sophism to say that they are con-
trary to the experience of Mr. Hume himself, unless he
had been personally present at the time and place, Wiien
and where all the miracles recorded in the Bible are said
to have 1 een wrought, from the days of Moses to the
lime of OUT Savior. Our experience, so far from bemg

I

441] home's denial of miracles. 3

contrary to miracles, is decided in favor of ihem. Both
our reason and our experience are altogether in favor
of the veracity of testimony, where there is no motive
to deceive, and no possibility of being deceived. Such
was the case with the apostles. Their personal expe-
rience, and that of many others, is invmcibly in favor
of miracles. There is no experience — no, not even of
a single individual, against miracles. No one was ever
placed in the situation where miracles might be rea-
sonably expected, to whom miracles were not vouch-
safed. Thus so far from miracles being contrary to
experience, the whole range of the experience we
possess is altogether, and without one solitary excep-
tion, in favor of miracles.

'• But to take entirely new ground, miracles, philo-
sophically speaking, are not violations of the laws of
nature. The miracles of the Bible, which are the
only true miracles, so far from being violations of na-
ture, are as natural as the lifting up of a stone from
the ground, or impelling a vessel along the waves by
the stroke of an oar. None would call it a violation
of the laws of nature when human agents set a body
in motion which was previously at rest, and which
would have remained at rest without their interfer-
ence ; still less can it be called a violation of the laws
of nature, when the Divine Agent, who is the law-
giver of nature, impresses an additional force upon
creation, and gives a new direction to its movements.
But it would be endless to go over all the variety of
mistakes which are involved in the sophistry against
miracles, and to point out the many vulgar and un-
philosophical notions which are implied in Hume's

4 Hume's denial op miracles. ^442

reasonings, both concerning nature and her inviolabU
laws."

The proofs in Campbell's admirable treatise are
summed up by the author in the following words :

'•' What is the sum of what has been now discussed ?
It is briefly this, that the author's favorite argument,
of which he boasts the discovery, is founded in error,
is managed with sophistry, and is at last abandoned
by its inventor, as fit only for show, not for use; that
he is not more successful in the collateral arguments
he employs, particularly that there is no peculiar pre-
sumption against religious miracles ; that, on the con-
trary, there is a peculiar presumption in their favor j
that the general maxim, whereby he would enable us
to decide betwixt opposite miracles, when it is stript
of the pompous diction that serves it at once for de-
coration and for disguise, is discovered to be no other
than an identical proposition, which, as it conveys no
icnowledge, can be of no service to the cause of truth,
that there is no presumption, arising either from hu-
man nature or from the history of mankind, against
the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of
Christianity ; that the evidence of these is not sub
verted by those miracles which historians of other na-
tions have recorded ; that neither the Pagan nor the
Popish miracles, on which he has expatiated, will bear
to be compared with those of holy writ ; that, abstract-
ing from the evidence of particular facts, Ave have irre-
fragable evidence that there have been miracles m
former times; and, lastly, that his examination of th«
Pentateuch is both partial and imperfect, and conse-
quently stands in need of a revisal."

Stariiie, an author of great eminence in the legal
profession, in his " Practical Treatise on the Law
Of Etidence," under the head of " Force of Testimo-
ny," vol. 1, p. 471, appends the following note, than
which nothing can be more conclusive.

" In observing upon the general principles on which
the credibility of human testimony rests, it may not
be irrelevant to advert to the summary positions on
this subject advanced by Mr. Hume. He says in his
Essay, vol. 2, sec. 10, A miracle is a violation of the
laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable expe-
rience has established these laws, the proof against
a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire
as any argument from experience can possibly be ima-
gined. As a matter of abstract philosophical conside-
ration, (for in that point of view only can the subject
be adverted to in a work like this,) Mr. Hume's rea-
soning appears to be altogether untenable. In the first
place, the very basis of his inference is, that faith in
human testimony is founded solely upon experience ;
this is by no means the fact; the credibility of testi-
mony frequently depends upon the exercise of reason,
on the effect of coincidences in testimony^ which, if
colusion be excluded, cannot be accounted for but
upon the supposition that the testimony of concurring
witnesses is true ; so much so, that their individual cha-
racter for veracity is frequently but of secondary im-
portance, (swpra, 466.) Its credibility also greatly de-

6 starkie's examination [444

pends upon confirmation by collateral circumstances,
and on analogies supplied by the aid of reason as well
as of mere experience. But even admitting experience
to be the basis, even the sole basis, of such belief, the
position built upon it is unwarrantable ; and it is falla-
cious, for, if adopted, it would lead to error. The posi-
tion is, that human testimony, the force of which rests
upon experience, is inadequate to prove a violation of
the laws of nature, which are established by firm and
unalterable experience. The very essence of the argu-
ment is, that the force of human testimony (the effi-
cacy of which in the abstract is admitted) is destroyed
by an opposite, conflicting, and superior force, derived
also from experience. If this were so, the argument
would be invincible ; but the question is, whether mere
previous inexperience of an event testified is directly
opposed to human testimony, so that mere inexperience
as strongly proves that the thing is not, as previous ex-
perience of the credibility of human testimony proves
that it is. Now a miracle, or violation of the laws of
nature, can mean nothing more than an event or efi'ect
never observed before ; and on the other hand, an event
or effect in nature never observed before is a violation
of the laws of nature ; thus, to take Mr. Hume's own
example, ' it is a miracle that a dead man should
come to life, because that has never been observed in
any age or country ;' precisely in the same sense, the
production of a new metal from potash, by means of a
powerful and newly-discovered agent m nature, and
the first observed descent of meteoric stones, were vio-
lations of the laws of nature ; they were events which
had never before been observed, and to the production
©f which the known laws of nature are inadequate.

445] OP Hume's argument. 7

But none of these events can, with the least propriety,
be said to be against or contrary to the laws of na-
ture in any other sense than that they have never be-
fore been observed ; and that the laws of nature, as far
as they were previously known, were inadequate to
their production. The proposition of Mr. Hume ought
then to be stated thus : Human testimony is founded
on experience, and is therefore inadequate to prove
that of which there has been no previous experience.
Now, whether it be plain and self-evident that the
mere negation of experience of a particular fact neces-
sarily destroys all faith in the testimony of those who
assert the fact to be true ; or whether, on the other
hand, this be not to confound the ^principle of belief
with the subject matter to which it is to be applied ;
and whether it be not plainly contrary to reason to in-
fer the destruction of an active principle of belief from
the mere negation of experience^ which is perfectly
consistent with the just operation of that principle;
whether, in short, this be not to assume broadly that
mere inexperience on the one hand is necessarily su-
perior to positive experience on the other, must be left
to every man's understanding to decide. The inferio-
rity of mere negative evidence to that which is direct
and positive, is, it will be seen, a consideration daily
acted upon in judicial investigations. Negative evi-
dence is, in the abstract, inferior to positive, because
the negative is not directly opposed to the positive tes-
timony ; both may be true. Must not this consideration
also operate where there is mere inexperience, on the
one hand, of an event in nature, and positive testimo-
ny of the fact on the other? Again, what are the law.s
of nature, established by firm and unalterablt expe-

3S Infidelity.

^ btarkie's examination 1 448

rience ? That there may be, and are, general and even
unalterable laws of providence and nature may readi-
ly be admitted ; but, that human knowledge and ex-
verience of those laws is unalterable (which alone can
be the test of exclusion) is untrue, except in a very
limited sense ; that is, it may fairly be assumed that a
law of nature once known to operate, will always ope-
rate in a similar manner, unless its operation be im
peded or counteracted by a new and contrary cause.
In a larger sense, the laws of nature are continually
alterable : as experiments are more frequent, more per-
fect, and as new phenomena are observed, and new
causes or agents are discovered, human experience of
the laws of nature becomes more general and more
perfect. How much more extended and perfect, for
instance, are the laws which regulate chemical attrac-
tions and affinities than they were two centuries ago?
And it is probable that in future ages experience of
the laws cf nature will be more perfect than it is at
present ; it is, in short, impossible to define to what
extent such knowledge may be carried, or whether, ul-
timately, the whole may not be resolvable into prin-
ciples admitting of no other explanation than that they
result immediately from tlie will of a superior Being.
This, at all events, is certain, that the laws of nature,
as inferred by the aid of experience, have from time to
time, by the aid of experience, been rendered more
general and more perfect. Experience, then, so fai
from pointing out any unalterable laws of nature to
the exclusion of events or phaenomena which have
never before been experienced, and which cannot be
accounted for by the laws already observed, shows the
very contrary, and proves that such new events or

447] OP hdme's argument. ^

phsenomena may become the foundation of more en-
larged, more general, and therefore more perfect laws.
But whose experience is to be the test ? that of the
objector; for the very nature of the objection excludes
all light from the experience of the rest of mankind.
The credibility, then, of human testimony is to de-
pend not on any intrinsic or collateral considerations
which can give credit to testimony, but upon the ca-
sual and previous knowledge of the person to whom
the testimony is offered; in other ends, it is plain that
a man's scepticism must bear a direct proportion to his
ignorance. Again, if Mr. Hume's inference be just,
ihe consequences to which it leads cannot be erro-
neous ; on the other hand, if it lead to error, the in-
ference must be fallacious ; the position is, that human
testimony is inadequate to prove that which has never
been observed before, and this, by proving far too much
for the author's purpose, is felo de se, and in effect
proves nothing : for if constant experience amount to
stronger evidence on the one side than is supplied by
positive testimony on the othei, the argument applies
necessarily to all cases where mere constant inexpe-
rience on the one hand is opposed to positive testimo-
ny on the other. According, then, to this argument,
every philosopher was bound to reject the testimony
of witnesses that they had seen the descent of meteo-
ric stones, and even acted contrary to sound reason in
attempting to account for a fact disproved by constant
inexperience, and would have been equally foolish in
giving credit to a chemist that he had produced a me-
tal from potash by means of a galvanic battery. It
will not, I apprehend, be doubted that in these and si-
milar instances the effect of Mr. Hume's argument

iO btarkie's examination [448

would have been to exclude testimony which was
true, and to induce false conclusions ; the principle,
therefore, on which it is founded, must of necessity be
fallacious. Nay further, if the testimony of others is
to be rejected, however unlikely they were either to
deceive or be deceived on the mere ground of inexpe-
rience of the fact testified, the same argument might
be urged even to the extravagant length of excluding
the authority of a man's ov/n senses ; for it might be
said that it is more probable that he should have la-
bored under some mental delusion, than that a fact
should have happened contrary to constant experience
of the course of nature.

" In stating that the inference attempted to be drawn
from mere inexperience is fallacious, I mean not to as-
sert that the absence of previous experience of a par-
ticular fact or phenomenon is not of the highest im-
portance to be weighed as a circumstance in all inves-
tigations, whether they be physical, judicial, or histo-
rical ; the more remote the subject of testimony is from
our own knowledge and experience, the stronger ought
the evidence to be to warrant our assent; neither is it
meant to deny that in particular instances, and under
particular circumstances, the want or absence of pre-
vious experience may not be too strong for positive
testimony, especially when it otherwise labors under
suspicion. What is meant is this, that mere inexpe-
rience, however constant, is not in itself, and in the
abstract, and without consideration of all the internal
and external probabilities in favor of human testimony,
sufficient to defeat and to destroy it, so as to supersede
the necessity of investigation. Mr. Hume's conclusion
is highly, objectionable, in a philosophical point of

449] OF Hume's argcment. 11

view, inasmuch as it would leave phenomena of the
most remarkable nature Avholly unexplained, and would
operate to the utter exclusion of all inquiry. Estoppels
are odious, even in judicial investigations, because
they tend to exclude the truth ; in metaphysics they
are intolerable. So conscious was Mr. Hume himself
of the weakness of his general and sweeping position,
that in the second part of his 10th section he limits his
inference in these remarkable terms, 'I beg the limi-
tations here made may be remarked, when I say that
a miracle can never be proved so as to be the founda-
tion of a system of religion; for I own that otherwise
there may possibly be miracles or violations of the
usual course of nature of such a kind as to admit oj
proof from, human testimony.^

" In what way the use to be made of a fact, when
proved, can affect the validity of the proof, or how i*
can be that a fact proved to be true is not true for all
purposes to which it is relevant, I pretend not to un-
derstand. Whether a miracle, when proved, may be
the foundation of a system of religion, is foreign to the
present discussion ; but when it is once admitted that
a miracle may be proved by human testimony, it ne-
cessarily follows, from Mr. Hume's own concession^
that his general position is untenable ; for that, if true,
goes to the full extent of proving that human testi-
mony h inadequate to the proof of a miracle, or vio-
lation of the laws of nature."

12 WEST ON [450

THE RESURRECTION.

OHDER OF EVENTS, AS RECORDED BY IHE FOUR
EVANGELISTS.

In the unanswered and unanswerable treatise of
Gilbert West, Esq. on the resurrection, all seeming
contradictions in the narratives of the Evangelists are
so fully explained, and the whole subject of the re-
surrection so amply and ably presented, that it forms
one of the most convincing proofs of the truth of Chris-
tianity. The reader who would thoroughly examine
the subject, is referred to the volume itself. Only the
outline of the order of events as presented by the au-
thor is here given.

Having thus cleared the way, (he says, section 9,) I
snail now set down the several incidents of this won-
derful event, in the order in which, according to the
foregoing observations, they seem to have arisen ; af-
ter premising that our Savior, Christ, was crucified
on a Friday, (the preparation, or the day before the
Jewish Sabbath,) gave up the ghost about three o'clock
in the afternoon of the same day, and was buried that
evening, before the commencement of the Sabbath,
which among the .Tews was always reckoned to begin
from the first appearance of the stars on Friday even-
ing, and to end at the appearance of them again on the
day we call Saturday : that some time, and most proba-
bly towards the close of the Sabbath, after the religious
duties of the day were over, the chief priests obtained
of Pilate, the Roman governor, a guard to watch the
sepulchre till the third day was past, pretending to

451] THE RESURRECnON. 1$,

apprehend that his disciples might come by night and
steal away the body, and then give out that he was
risen, according to what he himself had predicted
while he was yet alive ; that they did accordingly set
a guard, made sure the sepulchre, and to prevent the
soldiers themselves from concurring with the disciples,
they put a seal upon the stone which closed up the en^
trance of the sepulchre.

The order I conceive to have been as follows :
Very early on the first day of the week (the day im-
mediately following the Sabbath, and the third from
the death of Christ) Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary, in pursuance of the design of embalming the
Lord's body, which they had concerted with the other
women who attended him from Galilee to Jerusalem,
and for the performing of which they had prepared
unguents and spices, set out, in order to take a view
of the sepulchre, just as the day began to break; and
about the time of their setting out, " there was a great
earthquake ; for the angel of the Lord descended from
heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the
door of the sepulchre, and sat upon it: his countenance
was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow •
and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became
as dead men," during whose amazement and terror
Christ came out of the sepulchre ; and the keepers
being now recovered out of their trance and fled, the
angel, who till then sat upon the stone, quitted the sta-
tion on the outside, and entered into the sepulchre,
and probably disposed the linen clothes and napkin in
that order in which they were afterwards found and
observed by John and Peter. Mary Magdalene, in the
meanwhile, and the other Mary, were still on their

14 WEST ON [452

tray to the sepulchre, where, together with Salome,
(whom they had either called upon or met as they
were going,) they arrived at the rising of the sun. And
as they drew near, discoursing about the method of put-
ting their intent of embalming the body of their Master
in execution, "they said among themselves, who shall
roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre ?
for it was very great ;" and they themselves (the two
Maries at least) had seen it placed there two days be-
fore, and seen with what difficulty it was done. But
in the midst of their deliberation about removing this
great and sole obstacle to their design, (for it does not
appear that they knew any thing of the guard,) lifting
up their eyes, while they were yet at some distance,
they perceived it was already rolled away. Alarmed
at so extraordinary and so unexpected a circumstance,
Maiy Magdalene, concluding that, as the stone could
not be moved without a great number of hands, so it
was not rolled away without some design, and that
they who rolled it away could have no other design
but to remove the Lord's body ; and being convinced
by appearances that they had done so, ran immediately
to acquaint Peter and John with what she had seen
and what she suspected, leaving Mary and Salome
there, that if Joanna and the other women should come
in the meantime, they might acquaint them with their
surprise at finding the stone removed and the body
gone, and of Mary Magdalene's running to inform the
two above-mentioned apostles of it. While she was
going on this errand, Mary and Salome went on, and
entered into the sepulchre, "and there saw an an-
gel sitting on the right side, clothed in a long while
garment^ and they were affrighted. And he saiih unto

453] THE RESURRECTION. 15

them, Be not affrighted ; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth
which was crucified ; he is risen, he is not here ; be-
hold the place where they laid him. But go your way,
tell his disciples, and Peter, that he goeth before you
into Galilee ; there shall ye see him, as he said unto
you. And they went out quickly and fled from the se-
pulchre, for they trembled and were amazed ; neither
said they any thing to any man, for they were afraid."
After the departure of Mary and Salome came John
and Peter, who having been informed by Mary Mag-
dalene that the body of the Lord was taken away out
of the sepulchre, and that she knew not where they
had laid him, "ran both together to the sepulchre, and
the other disciple [John] outran Peter, and came first
to the sepulchre ; and he, stooping down and looking
in, saw the linen clothes lying, yet went he not in.
Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went
into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and
the napkin that was about his head, not lying with
the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by
itself Then went in also tnat other disciple which
came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed ;
for as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must
rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went
away again unto their own home. But Mary stood
without at the sepulchre weeping ; and as she wept,
she stooped down and looked into the sepulchre, and
seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head,
and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had
lain ; and they say unto her, Woman, why weepest
thou ? She saith unto them, Because they have taken
away ray Lord, and I know not where they have laid
him. And when she had thus said, she turned hersei/

16 VEST ON [4M

back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it
was Jesus. Jesus sailh unto her. Woman, why weepest
thou ? Whom seekest thou ? She, supposing him to
be the gardener, saith unto him. Sir, if thou have borne
him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I
will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary ! She
turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni ! which
is to say. Master ! Jesus saith unto her, Touch me
not, for I am not yet ascended unto my Father; but
go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto
my Father and your Father, and to my God and your
God." After this appearance of Christ to Mary Mag-
dalene, to whom St. Mark says expressly he appeared
first, the other Mary and Salome, who had fled from
the sepulchre in such terror and amazement that they
said not any thing to any man, (that is, as I under-
stand, had not told the message of the angel to some
whom they met, and to whom they were directed to
deliver it,) were met on their way by Jesus Christ
himself, who said to them, "All hail ! And they came
and held him by the feet and worshiped him. Then
said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid, go tell my brethren
that they go into Galilee, and thcie shall they see me.'*
These several women and the two apostles being now
gone from the sepulchre, Joanna with the other Gali-
lean women, " and others with them, came bringing
the spices which they had prepared for the embalming
the body of Jesus, and finding the stone roiled away
from the sepulchre, they entered in, but not finding
the body of the Lord Jesus, they were much perplexed
thereabout, and behold two men stood by them in shin-
ing garments ; and as they were afraid, and bowed
down their faces to the earth, they said unto them^

455] THE RESURRECTION. 17

Why seelr ye the living among the dead 7 He is not
here, but is risen. Remember how he spake unto you
when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man
must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and
be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they
remembered his words, and returned from the sepul-
chre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to
all the rest. And their words seemed to them as idle
tales, and they believed them not." But Peter, who
upon the report of Mary Magdalene had been at the
sepulchre, had entered into it, and with a curiosity that
bespoke an expectation of something extraordinary,
and a desire of being satisfied, had observed that the
linen clothes in which Christ was buried, and the
napkin which was about his head, were not only left
in the sepulchre, but carefully wrapped up and laid
in several places ; and who from thence might begin
to suspect what his companion St. John from those
very circumstances seems to have believed : Peter, I
say, hearing from Joanna that she had seen a vision
of angels at the sepulchre, who had assured her that
Christ was risen, starting up, ran thither immediately,
and knowing that the angels, if they were within the
sepulchre, might be discovered without his going in,
he did not, as before, enter in, but stooping down looked
80 far in as to see the " linen clothes, and departed,
wondering in himself at that which was come to pass."
And either Avith Peter, or about that time, went some
other disciples who were present when Joanna and the
other women made their report, " and found it even so
as the women had said. The same day two of the
disciples went to a village called Emmaus, whit^ was
from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they

IS WEST OJf 1 456

talked together of all those things which had happened.
And it came to pass that while they communed to-
gether and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and
went with them. But their eyes were holden. that
they should not know him. And he said unto them,
What manner of communications [arguments] are
these that ye have one to another, as ye walk and are
sad ? And one of them, whose name was Cleopas, an-
swering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in
Jerusalem, and hast not known the things whioti are
come to pass there in these days ? And he said unto
them. What things ? And they said unto him, Con-
cerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty
m deed and word before God and all the people ; and
how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to
be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But
we trusted that it had been he which should have re-
deemed Israel ; and beside all this, to-day is the third
day since these things were done. Yea, and certain
women also of our company made us astonished,
which were early at the sepulchre ; and when they
found not his body, they came, saying that they had
also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was
alive. And certain of them which were with us, went
to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women
had said ; but him they saw not. Then he said unto
them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the
prophets have spoken ! Ought not Christ to have suf-
fered these things, and to enter into his glory '? And
beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded
unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning
himself. And they drew nigh unto the village whither
tliey went, and he made as though he would have

4571 THE RESURRECTION. 19

gone farther. But they constrained him, saying, Abide
with us, for it is towards evening, and the day is far
spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it
came to pass as he sat at meat with them, he took
bread and blessed it, and brake and gave to them.
And their eyes were opened, and they knew him ; and
he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to
another, did not our hearts burn within us, while he
talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us
the Scriptures '? And they rose up the same hour, and
returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered
together, and them that were with them, saying, The
Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
And they told what things were done in the way, and
how he was known of them in breaking of bread."

This is the order in which the several incidents
above related appear to have arisen ; the conformity
of which with the words of the evangeliists, interpreted
m their obvious and most natural sense, I have shown
m my remarks upon the passages wherein they are
contained. By this order, all the different events na-
turally and easily follow, and as it were rise out of
one another, and the narration of the evangelists U
cleared from all confusion and inconsistencies.

tHC END.